The Instigator
ScarletGhost4396
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
socialpinko
Pro (for)
Winning
3 Points

Resolved: Private corporations supporting gay rights should remain neutral instead.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 3 votes the winner is...
socialpinko
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/17/2012 Category: Society
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,176 times Debate No: 24323
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (11)
Votes (3)

 

ScarletGhost4396

Con

In case if anyone doesn't know what I'm referring to, it is this: http://www.huffingtonpost.com...

If the link is not working, the article is from the Huffington Post Gay Voices titled "Same-Sex Marriage Winning Corporate Favor, Foes Urge Business 'Neutrality'".

First round is for acceptance of the resolution.
socialpinko

Pro

I accept this debate and will undertake to refute the resolution. I will argue that neutrality and agnosticism are default positions and that there is no reason not to hold these positions without ample reasoning or obligation on the parts of those wishing for non-neutrality (whether Pro or Con). From this I will attempt to show that my opponent has not provided ample reasoning to change from the default position of neutrality. Now definitions, my opponent has not defined any terms so I will do so here.


===Definitions===


Private corporations will be defined as businesses or companies who are run by private citizens and that are not controlled or operated by the government.

To support "gay rights" will mean to put one's self on the side of various causes such as gay marriage, gay adoption, etc. while in order to not support "gay rights" one is putting themselves in opposition to such causes.

Neutrality (or agnosticism) will mean that someone does not hold a strong opinion in any direction on a particular issue or chooses not to express those opinions for whatever reason.

Should will mean that there is ample reason to do something or that a genuine obligation or duty has been shown making it necessary to do something.



Besides clarifying my position as Con in conjunction with the resolution and defining the relevant terms we will be using for this debate it doesn't appear there is anything left for me to do in this round and thus I formally accept the debate and pass it on to my opponent.
Debate Round No. 1
ScarletGhost4396

Con

For the following debate resolution, I defend the following thesis: Gay rights require pasage in order to establish equity and recognition for homosexuals in society, and passage requires great advocacy. For this reason, private companies that already support gay rights should not revert to neutral leanings on the issue. I, for this reason, stand on the CON side of this debate and negate the resolution. I accept all of my opponent's terms and definitions, and I move on toward my solitary contention for this debate:

Contention: Gay rights require passage.
The advocacy of gay rights quickens and catalyzes the process of their passage, and the necessity of gay rights requires quick passage in government. The support of private organizations help to achieve this goal whether it be through simple statement of advocacy or monetary support. Gay rights are essential to support.

Sub-point 1a: Denial of gay rights creates second-class citizens.
The systematic discrimination of gays via denial to recognize their rights designates gay people as second-class citizens of inferior status. Because of this treatment, they fit the qualifications of what is characterized as the second-class citizen:

A person considered inferior in status or rights in comparison with some others (The American Heritage Dictionary)
a person whose rights and opportunities are treated as less important than those of other people in the same society (Collins English Dictionary)

Sub-point 1b: Denial of gay rights causes negative social effects.
The CDC speaks on the effects of the denial of gay rights and equal recognition: "

Negative attitudes about homosexuality can lead to rejection by friends and family, discriminatory acts and violence that harm specific individuals, and laws and policies that adversely affect the lives of many people; this can have damaging effects on the health of MSM and other sexual minorities. Homophobia, stigma and discrimination can:

  • Limit MSM's ability to access high quality health care that is responsive to health issues of MSM
  • Affect income, employment status, and the ability to get and keep health insurance
  • Contribute to poor mental health and unhealthy behaviors, such as substance abuse, risky sexual behaviors, and suicide attempts
  • Affect MSM's ability to establish and maintain long-term same-sex relationships that reduce HIV & STD risk
  • Make it difficult for some MSM to be open about same-sex behaviors with others, which can increase stress, limit social support, and negatively affect health

The effects of homophobia, stigma and discrimination can be especially hard on adolescents and young adults. Young MSM and other sexual minorities are at increased risk of being bullied in school. They are also at risk of being rejected by their families and, as a result, are at increased risk of homelessness. A study published in 2009 compared gay, lesbian, and bisexual young adults who experienced strong rejection from their families with their peers who had more supportive families. The researchers found that those who experienced stronger rejection were:

  • 8.4 times more likely to have tried to commit suicide
  • 5.9 times more likely to report high levels of depression
  • 3.4 times more likely to use illegal drugs
  • 3.4 times more likely to have risky sex
"Stigma and Discrimination." Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 03 Mar. 2011. Web. 20 June 2012. <http://www.cdc.gov...;.

socialpinko

Pro

I would like to mention that I'm excited to debate Scarlet on this issue as LGBT topics appears to be a specialty of hers in regards to the topics she debates.


Observation: Corporations in the resolution.


Before I begin my resolution of Con's case I need to make an observation regarding the use of the term corporation in the resolution. The resolution states that corporations "supporting gay rights" should remain neutral. Since my opponent is Con the proposition she is defending is that corporations that support gay rights should not remain neutral. The point that is interesting though is the use of the word remain. The term doesn't imply an obligation to any other corporations. It only seems to apply to those who have already made a stand in support of gay rights. Therefore it would seem my opponent's case would be inherently inconsistent in that she is arguing for corporate recognition of gay rights by those that already do without any say on corporations that don't. Since gay rights are already not fully recognized (as implied by my opponent's case even though they have yet to be defined) my opponent's case wouldn't actually serve to further the gay rights cause. At best it would only be able to justify the maintenance of current corporate support and not anything more.


Contention. Gay Rights Require Passage.


Before I start my case I feel the need to point out that my opponent was ambiguous on what exactly she meant by the term 'gay rights'. She uses the term several times over the coarse of the debate but it was never explicitly defined. Does gay rights refer to gay marriage, gay voting, gay adoptions, prohibition of private or public discrimination based on being gay?, what does it mean specifically? Gay rights can refer to any number of things[1], none of which may be specifically surmised from my opponent's case. I feel as though this debate will stagnate until we can clear this definitions issue seeing as her main contention is that gay rights are worthwhile and their acceptance is obligatory.


Sub-C1. Second Class Citizenry.


As I pointed out earlier, I feel as though stagnation is inevitable in this debate if what actual rights gays have are not defined. My opponent argues: "The systematic discrimination of gays via denial to recognize their rights designates gay people as second-class citizens of inferior status." I'm afraid I can't make an adequate response as my opponent has provided neither a definition of what gay rights entail or specific examples of these rights being violated in the real world. Secondly, my opponent has not defined whether the mechanism through which these rights are violated are through the government itself or private corporations. This distinction will become important once the rights specifically are defined as I will explain once Con elaborates.


Sub-C2: Negative Utility of Denial.


(1) I would like to first make the observation that the basis of my opponent's case and this specific point (Sub-C2) can be shown to be contradictory from the outset through their general approaches to the issue at hand. This can be shown without Con even defining gay rights, which is what is stagnating Sub-C1.


The reason why they are contradictory can be seen more clearly by looking closely at the resolution firstly. It focuses around gay rights and the obligation to recognize them on the part of some corporations. The keyword here is rights. The resolution presupposes within itself the existence of rights and thus the scope of this debate will have the preservation of rights as a general value. If someone's rights are violated, that would be opposed in this debate. The contradiction comes from the nature of Con's Sub-C2's utilitarian outlook on the issue at hand.


My opponent has moved away from the defense of gay rights to the effects of treating them a certain way. At the best this point is moot as its approach is generally irrelevant in a debate about rights. Consider an analogy. If we all have the right not to be murdered then the prohibition of murder should be based entirely on the fact that it is a rights violation (of course this takes the right as a given, my opponent has not even made it this far). We would not argue that killing someone has bad effects on their friends psychological state because even if it didn't we would still prohibit murder as it is still wrong!


My opponent's point here serves to approach the topic from mutually incompatible angles. Either we base obligation on the preservation of rights or we base it on utilitarian concerns on the consequences of adhering to certain behaviors. We cannot do both and since my opponent's mentions gay rights in the resolution we will assume my opponent will approach the topic from a rights preservation angle.


===Sources===


[1] http://www.guardian.co.uk...
Debate Round No. 2
ScarletGhost4396

Con

Observation level: My opponent states that I'm trying to further the gay rights cause with my case. Well...I can't argue with that. That's exactly what my case intends to do. However, the converse argument in this debate plans to argue that private corporations should remain neutral instead in the issue of gay rights, which would draw back the cause for gay rights in the future. These corporations could provide monetary and social support for the cause, but if they remain neutral instead, their position would be not to provide funds for either party. This is not to speak about the opposition to gay rights, where there are corporations such as Chick-Fil-A that provide funds to organizations that are against gay rights, including the National Organization of Marriage. What we have in the end are corporations who are against gay rights providing support and corporations who support it providing none if we go with my opponent's case. In the future, gay rights would be advanced in my case or the drive and support toward having them advanced would be maintained in my case.
Definition of Gay Rights: The thing about my definition is that my opponent has already defined them. Judges, if you look back into the first round, you will see that my opponent explained what supporting gay rights would entail, and he seems to have furthered that definition when he explained in the second rebuttal. I said earlier that I accepted all of my opponents terms and definitions, including what he meant when he said what supporting gay rights would be. I'm not explaining anything ambiguous.
CON Sub-point 1a: Again, I have accepted my opponent's definitions of what entails gay rights, including what he iterated in his Evidence 1.
CON Sub-point 1b: The key words from my opponent's rebuttal are "...the scope of this debate will have the preservation of rights as a general value." This is where my opponent and I agree, but at the point where he's saying that this can't be argued from a utilitarian standpoint, that's where the disagree. Rights were meant to be preserved, as I argue, but rights themselves have a reason as to why they're defended. Rights themselves have a reason as to why they were created, and they weren't simply to acknowledge the inherent worth of a human being, but also to provide a rationale as to why not to commit atrocity and have negative effects results. Take for instance the human rights defined by the United Nations. They stemmed from ages of revolution in Europe after many atrocities commited by monarchial governments against the people and the negative conditions at which the people were subjected to. They were established as a document by the UN after World War II after seeing the massive atrocities committed by Hitler during the Holocaust. My main point here is that rights can have utilitarian reasons as to why they exist as well, and these utilitarian reasons only do the more to justify their existence. Henceforth, my angle at which I argue this sub-point is not by any means irrelevant.
socialpinko

Pro

Observation. Corporations in the resolution.


In my last round I argued that the resolution only provides that corporations which ALREADY support gay rights should instead remain neutral. As I mentioned, it says nothing of any supposed obligations on corporations which are either already neutral or which in fact actively oppose gay causes. My point in observing this wording is to point out an apparent inconsistency in my opponent's case. He argues that if corporations supporting gay rights do not provide support, then corporations which don't support them and do provide support to their causes (my opponent mentions the NOM as an example), then the fight for gay rights will not be advanced. There is a problems with this contention and it's relation to the resolution though.


(1) It is based off of obligation (from the need to respect gay rights) but inconsistently applies such an obligation in that it makes no mention of an obligation on anti-gay rights corporations to stop supporting anti-gay causes or to start supporting pro-gay ones. Why do neutral corporations have an obligation whereas corporations which are of net hurt to gay rights causes immune to such obligation and how does my opponent logically draw the line in this obligation?


Contention. Gay Rights Require Passage.


I apologize to my opponent for the mix up. I defined supporting gay rights in a very general context just to lay out the basics and thought my opponent would be more specific on the gay rights he had in mind for this debate. Anyways though, as that is out of the way I feel like we can move on.


Sub-C1. Second Class Citizenry.


My opponent has failed to properly support his assertion that denying homosexuals marriage or adoption abilities (those were the only two things explicitly mentioned in my own definition which my opponent has accepted) makes them second class citizens.


On non-recognition of gay marriage by the government, it would be my contention that the government has no place recognizing marriages in the first place, whether gay or straight. So while the current policy of marriage recognition is inconsistent and unjustified, it is not owing to the recognition of gay marriage but to the recognition of marriage at all. This is because taxes payed by those who have no intention of marrying are invariably used to fund the various benefits that come with State-recognition of one's marriage (military and veteran's benefits for spouses, retirement benefits for deceased spouses, various tax exemptions which are made up for by non-married tax payers, etc.[1]). The solution is not to lobby for more inconsistent marriage policy by recognizing gay marriage, but to end State recognition altogether and either privatize marriage contracts entirely or leave their recognition to various religious organizations.


On gay adoption, I refer my opponent to my observation regarding the resolution. My opponent's own plan in regards to the resolution is that corporate support of these causes is necessary for their recognition. However, he has failed to actually provide a practical plan in this matter in that the supposed obligation only applies to corporations already supporting gay rights. Since gay rights have not been fully recognized yet, this would mean that corporations currently supporting such causes are insufficient to attain that goal. And since my opponent's plan does not refer obligation to either corporations who are neutral or those actively opposed to gay rights, my opponent's plan would not be sufficient even if we were to accept his unsupported premise that rights exist and refer moral obligation on others.


Sub-C2. Negative Utility of Denial.


In defense of my contention of incompatibility of my opponent's both utilitarian and deontological rights angles in order to support the resolution, my opponent defends this by arguing that the purpose of rights is to " provide a rationale as to why not to commit atrocity and have negative effects results." However, this does not in itself justify the existence of rights. All it does it provide reasoning why people would want rights to exist. This reasoning fails to actually justify the existence of rights since one must assume the need to protect the things we call rights in order to decide to establish them in the first place. Consider the reasoning stated more clearly:


>There ought to be a rationale as to why not commit atrocities against people.
>The best way to do this is to establish basic inalienable rights.


As we can see, the basic premise on which it is founded assumes the need to stop negative utility behaviors against people. But here my opponent has simply traded in the unsupported presupposition that people have inherent rights to the unsupported presupposition that utilitarianism is a justified normative ethics. But this point is not itself self evidence. One has to justify it before they can create legitimate obligation on others. If utilitarianism is not rationally supported then all it's proponents are doing is creating unethical obligation on others based on their own personal ethical sentiments. My opponent has failed to justify a utilitarian ethical framework and thus his derivation of rights from it is unjustified and unsupported.


===Sources===


[1] http://www.nolo.com...
Debate Round No. 3
ScarletGhost4396

Con

Observation level: My opponent and I seem to be more or less in accord to the idea that gay rights must be upheld by the society. I would certainly argue that every organization has a strict obligation to uphold such rights warranted by their existence in the society. Organizations that don't support the cause of establishing equality are most definately condemned by my case statement, and I strongly support a shift in the position of such organizations to uphold their responsibilities. The reason why I'm not arguing about the organizations that don't uphold their responsibilities is because the resolution does not explicitly focus on these organizations. In this resolution, we're working under the scenario at which gay rights have not been entirely guaranteed by the society, and there are corporations that support or oppose gay rights. This resolution stems from an article I read online where the National Organization of Marriage is calling for these organizations supporting gay rights (such as General Mills, the cereal company centered in Minnesota that recently condemned the bill in the state that would bar gay marriage) to be neutral on the position instead. It's not that the organizations that don't support gay rights are immune from these obligations. It's that they're not the focus of this particular debate.
Sub-point 1a: It seems that now I am the one who is confused about the definition of "gay rights." My opponent clearly stated that he placed gay rights in a very general context and even implied it when he placed the etcetera at the end of the list when he explicitly defined the term. Such a debate would include topics like discrimination of gays in employment, gays in the military, legislation against LGBT-bullying, etc. However, when my opponent attacks this sub-point, he focuses on two particular aspects of gay rights when we're supposed to be debating the rights in general. This rebuttal has poor coverage of the rights we're discussing at hand. My opponent doesn't provide a reason as to why such taxation would be particularly unjustified, his warrant for why marriages should not be recognized and sanctioned by the government period. I would like if my opponent could elaborate on this point further. On the issue of gay adoption, I've already addressed the particular notions that my opponent follows in my own rebuttal of the observation.
Subpoint 1b: Utilitarian reasonings for the existence of rights not only partially warrant the rights themselves but provide a reasoning as to why they should be protected as well: society crumbles; morality becomes ebbed. This isn't just a slippery slope because I provided evidence in my sub-point 1b explaining exactly what the end result of all of it is. Inalienable human rights stem from the idea that the human being is inherently sanctified simply for being a human being. It is why murder is condemned. It is why crimes against humanity are condemned. These utilitarian principles are surrounded to benefit the human being whereas upholding the agonisticism to rights would not do anything to achieve them. This is all, of course, under the assumption that my opponent agrees that human beings are inherently sanctified. This is the ultimate warrant for the support of utilitarian reasonings in order to establish rights, unless my opponent wants to argue that humans have no inherent value.
socialpinko

Pro

Corporations in the resolution.


In the face of a strong argument from Con regarding the scope of the debate, I will concede my refutation concerning private corporations and universalized obligation. This debate will be focused on private corporations already supportive of gay rights as per the nature of my opponent's focus in creating this debate, a response to an article specifically about private corporations and whether they ought to retract such positions. Hopefully, with this point out of the way, this debate will be able to proceed further in a clearer manner. That being said however, my refutations of Sub-C1 and C2 still hold as will be made apparent below.


Sub-C1. Second Class Citizenry.


I apologize to my opponent if my argument is in any way off topic or confusing. My points regarding gay rights in the last round were in regards to the two biggest general tenets of LGBT movements. I obviously wouldn't have enough room to mention each and every right that LGBT activists are requesting. On my argument against government recognition of marriage, my argument was simply that lending recognition to marriage (and thus certain financial benefits and civil recognitions) unjustly discriminated against and subsidized the tax money of non-married persons. Therefore government recognition of marriage AT ALL is unjust and so the proper response is not to expand this injustice, but to eliminate it altogether (by eliminating government involvement in marriage).


That being said however, I feel as though this opponent is itself only of secondary importance in relation to Sub-C2 and my opponent's assumption of utilitarianism and the objective value of human life. If these two points cannot be justified then any ethical arguments in this point are moot as the worldview behind it has not been justified. See my refutation below for more analysis.


Sub-C2. Negative Utility of Denial.


My opponent's justification in regards to this point is two-pronged. In the first part of the point, he argues that utilitarian concerns require that rights be recognized, and also that human sanctity posits the existence of inalienable human rights irrespectively.


(A) Utilitarianism


On this point, I'd like to point out that as of yet my opponent has simply assumed the validity of the utilitarian framework in making ethical claims. Utilitarianism isn't simply the default worldview that we fall to after all. For utilitarianism is based on principles which aren't themselves self evident. Thus in order to argue for the justification of any results based on this worldview, the worldview itself must be justified! To do otherwise is to simply assume one's answer without proper substantiation. My opponent has however failed entirely to do this. Nowhere in his argument will we find a justification for the principle of utility or ethical consequentialism even. Even his point that rejecting this framework would lead to the crumbling of society is insufficient to establish obligation since the standard of ethics he is arguing from is itself ungrounded.


(B) Inherent Sanctity


While utilitarianism is used as a mainly supporting point in regards to the justification of rights, my opponent argues that the inherent sanctity of human life is what in itself ultimately justifies the existence of inalienable rights. My opponent argues that human sanctity is what leads to condemnation of various acts we call immoral. But one will notice in reading my opponent's argument that he fails to provide substantive justification for this point. He also admits that his point only lacks warrant "unless my opponent wants to argue that humans have no inherent value." I would certainly make this claim though as both I myself don't see evidence for objectivity in mere valuations and for the reason that my opponent has not brought a positive argument of his own in support of the contention.
Debate Round No. 4
ScarletGhost4396

Con

Observation Level: Well, considering that this is the final round of the debate, I only want to emphasize that my opponent has conceded to this part on my side of the debate, meaning that any previous argument made on this particular matter in the course of this debate should be disregarded in the decisions for the winner.
Sub-point 1a: There really was no need to mention each and every single right. Gay rights can be used in general terms when addressing the arguments I made in the previous rounds. The only thing that I was pointing out is that although we're speaking to gay rights in general terms, my opponent only focuses on refuting two particular sets of gay rights. My opponent had provided a reason as to why marriage should not be recognized by the government at all, but even that was also just as ambiguous as his previous reasoning. Why are non-married persons being unjustly discriminated against? At what point is a person being unjustly discriminated? He won't be able to answer these questions considering that I won't have another round to respond to them, meaning that this point might as well be considered as a groundless argument. The fact that he condemns unjustified discrimination, however, shows us that he is supporting the ground reasoning that feeds into the main logic of this sub-point: unjustified discrimination is wrong. In this sub-point, I'm specifically trying to protect gays from this status of being someone less important or discriminated against, and I'm saying that the extension of gay rights needs to be done in order to prevent gays from being placed into this status of being a second-class citizen. My opponent tried to make my ethical arguments seem like moot, but in reality, his rebuttal just substantiated my sub-point.

socialpinko

Pro

Observation.


While it is true that I have conceded my argument regarding the use of corporation in the resolution, I feel as though I should make it clear what I have and what I have not conceded. I have conceded my own argument that my opponent was employing inconsistent reasoning in arguing for the obligation of current corporations supporting gay rights. I have not conceded my refutations concerning the justification of gay marriage, utilitarianism, human rights, or of the sanctity of human life.


Sub-C1. Second Class Citizenry.


Regarding my argument against government recognition of marriage, I must emphasize that I was not supporting any moral norm or right not to be discriminated against (or any of the other unsubstantiated theories my opponent has argued). I was merely using my opponent's own reasoning against him. Throughout the debate he has argued that denying gay rights is an unjust form of discrimination. But under his conception I was able to show that the entire recognition of marriage by the government in the first place was unjust discrimination against non-married people (by forcing them to pay for benefits only incurred by married people). Therefore, my opponent's own reasoning was inconsistent since his purported aim of reducing unjust discrimination would only add more unjust discrimination into the mix. Of course, like I said, I think that this point is only of secondary importance anyways in regards to Sub-C2.


Sub-C2. Negative Utility of Denial.


My opponent never attempted to ground in evidence either the inherent sanctity of human life, the justification of utilitarianism or consequentialist ethics, or the existence of things we could call natural or human rights. His only argument was to claim that my own refutation employed these things as presuppositions within the argument, therefore I am being inconsistent in arguing against them. But as I iterated in my refutation of Sub-C1, I was not assuming their validity or truth. I was assuming them for the purpose of a reductio ad absurdum of my opponent's argument (which he only claimed didn't work without reasoning as to why) which he never properly refuted anyways.


===Conclusion===


My opponent's argument rested primarily on either the existence of natural human rights which were being violated by not recognizing them (since if they don't exist the argument that we ought to recognize them becomes incoherent) or on the justification of a consequentialist ethical outlook (so as to make his argument from negative utility of denial relevant and applicable). However, my opponent was never able to do this or even really attempted to do so. His only partial attempt was to claim that I assumed the validity of his ethical claims in arguing against SSM (which I showed was a misinterpretation of my point at length above). Since the actual existence of rights was never shown, my opponent has not been able to uphold the proposition that they should be supported by anyone.
Debate Round No. 5
11 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by 1dustpelt 4 years ago
1dustpelt
And Pro is the one saying in another debate that companies who disagree with gay marriage should be restricted. So now companies who agree with gay marriage can and should expand and express their gay marriage messages everywhere, while companies who disagree with them should be restricted from business?

Now THAT is discrimination.
Posted by socialpinko 4 years ago
socialpinko
Faith in humanity: lost.
Posted by Maikuru 4 years ago
Maikuru
Sorry I couldn't help decide a (temporary) winner here.
Posted by Maikuru 4 years ago
Maikuru
I underestimated the complexity of the debate and my exhaustion. I'm all over this tomorrow.
Posted by ScarletGhost4396 4 years ago
ScarletGhost4396
Well, so much for the tie. lol
Posted by Maikuru 4 years ago
Maikuru
I'm going to vote the hell out of this thing. No debate left behind.
Posted by socialpinko 4 years ago
socialpinko
Vote?
Posted by Stephen_Hawkins 4 years ago
Stephen_Hawkins
I thought the motion was quite clear tbh: private corporations should be neutral in the issue of gay rights. The "If they previously supported it" seemed trivial and contextual to the huffington post.
Posted by socialpinko 4 years ago
socialpinko
You're assuming that if moral obligation exists, that it doesn't apply to someone because they're part of a corporation.
Posted by RoyLatham 4 years ago
RoyLatham
A confusing debate with an unclear resolution. If the resolution amounts to "Corporations should never support gay rights." that fails, because the corporation may be chartered to advance social causes or it may be good business to advance a social agenda. If the resolution is "Corporations should always support gay rights." that also fails. It depends upon what the charter requires. So moving from support to neutral depends entirely upon what the charter requires. If the charter just says to make money, management gets to decide whether support or neutrality best aids corporate business objectives.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by InVinoVeritas 4 years ago
InVinoVeritas
ScarletGhost4396socialpinkoTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: In the end, Con emphasized concession that didn't necessary make Pro not meet BoP.
Vote Placed by Maikuru 4 years ago
Maikuru
ScarletGhost4396socialpinkoTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: Con attempted to explain how acceptance of gay rights betters society but I never saw how that translated to independent entities like businesses. However, as the resolution concerned corporations already supporting gay rights, onus fell to Pro. His case, which focused on undermining Con's assumptions regarding rights, really did nothing to show me why organizations already dedicated to a specific view of rights should bother changing. Both sides missed the mark. I hate to do it but it's a tie.
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 4 years ago
RoyLatham
ScarletGhost4396socialpinkoTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: Corporations are organized for narrow purposes as defined by the specific corporate charter. That might or might not include supporting gay rights. Management might also conclude that supporting gay rights encourages business. Neither side made any argument relative to what is required by the corporate charters. with no relevant arguments, it's a tie.