The Instigator
Me100
Con (against)
Winning
19 Points
The Contender
mackoman_93
Pro (for)
Losing
14 Points

Resolved: in an economic recession it is immoral for a teenager to accept a summer job

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 5 votes the winner is...
Me100
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/5/2010 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,383 times Debate No: 11639
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (9)
Votes (5)

 

Me100

Con

Aff goes first LD format :D
mackoman_93

Pro

In September of 2009 unemployment was at 14.5% according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor statistics. When you compare the need of some people to have a job verses the people who wish to acquire a job for luxurious purposes one sees a dramatic imbalance. This is why I strongly affirm the resolution Resolved: in an economic recession it is immoral for a teenager to accept a summer job.

To clarify the debate I offer the following definitions:

Teenager- A person between the ages of 13 and 18 who are economically dependent on a third party (i.e. parent an/or guardians)

summer job- a temporary job accepted usually for the length of a summer.

Economic recession- GDP growth is negative for a period of two or more consecutive quarters. http://recession.org...

My value for the debate will be SOCIETAL STABILITY and my criterions will be FURTHERING ECONOMIC STABILITY FOR THE FAMILY UNIT and BOLSTERING JOB AVAILABILITY FOR PARTIES LIVING IN AN ECONOMICALLY INDEPENDENT MANNER.

Observation one: Necessity ought be prioritized over luxury. (This is simple it goes back to the very basics of human instinct).

Observation two: teenagers taking summer jobs generates job competition.

Contention one: NECESSITY OVER SOME SNOT NOSED TEEN WHO WANTS A JOB.
In times of economic hardship when people are struggling to make ends meet, people who need jobs ought be valued above people who want the luxury of having a job. When teenagers get jobs, they lower job availability. When job availability is lowered, then people who need a job have a harder time getting one. This threatens societal stability by ignoring the people who have a need in favor of the people who want a job as a luxury. If taken to an extreme the result could be economic and financial ruin. Economic ruin leads to destabilization of society according to Pat Robertson "Ten thousand nuclear war heads and the most technologically trained army in the world will not be able to stop America's economic disaster. An implosion that will come from the moral rot inside her heart. A physical army cannot stop the wave of spiritual destruction, for God does not use the weapons of this world to fight against her." http://www.freedomyou.com...

IMPACT: spiritual destruction is genocide.

On December 9, 1948 the United Nations approved the Genocide Convention defied genocide as "1) killing people belonging to the group; 2) causing severe bodily or spiritual harm to members of the group; 3) deliberately forcing a group to live under conditions that could lead to the complete or partial destruction of the group; 4) taking measures to prevent births among a group; and 5) forcibly removing children from the group and transferring them to another group." Point 2 talks about spiritual harm. Spiritual destruction is spiritual harm, therefore spiritual destruction is defined by the UN as genocide.

Ultimately in an economic recession it has been shown to be immoral and destructive for a teenager to accept a summer job.

Thank you and vote affirmative.
Debate Round No. 1
Me100

Con

I will agree with my opponent definitions and move on to the actual debate.
on his observation two: teenagers taking summer jobs generates job competition. Job competition is a good thing.

My Value's will be that of Economic Stability, and Education. I provide the criterion of increasing public spending

First and only point, by increasing spending we step away from the recession and continue a healthy economy. Now it is perfectly moral for a teen to get a job because why do teenagers need money if they are taken care of by there parent? well the answer is to SPEND IT. This money made in time goes back into the economy into the hands of employers who will open up more jobs and increase employment. From the source that my opponent has given (http://recession.org...) they point out that the cause of recession is because of a stall in the flow of money, therefore it is perfectly moral for teens to get summer jobs because they prevent even can help the economy get out of times of recession.

Therefore, my opponents contention one is invalid because we should actually be giving those jobs to those who will spend there money avoiding his impact of a economic collapse. I also do not need to address his observation one because there are also teenagers who need these jobs to help support there family as much as some other people.

Thank you... vote for me :)
mackoman_93

Pro

Job competition is dandy. Job competition in an economic recession (where a teenager is taking jobs away from people who need it) is not so dandy. My opponent ignores this critical concept (and fails to attack it in my case). When you disregard this the result is spiritual destruction and ultimately genocide (this was also uncontested and VERY important).

His value of Economic Stability is not the greatest good in the round because when dealing with economic stability the ultimate goal is over all societal stability (which is my value) thus you must affirm.

His criterion of increasing public spending s not up-held by his advocacy ad does not link to his value. Furthermore, increasing public spending does not achieve his value. His case is skewed.

In the end he has not attacked my position (failing to uphold his burden of clash) and has tried to squeeze a negative vote out of you with his fallacious position. Don't fall for his trick.

Additionally,remember the IMPACT that was ignored. My position calls to question genocide. My opponent's position does not claim any impact therefore mine is the one that you must support.

Thank you :)
Debate Round No. 2
Me100

Con

The first thing my opponent points out within this round is the fact that "... a teenager is taking jobs away from people who need it..." I'd like bring your attention to one thing and that is within the last rebuttal i have already addressed this issue that it is not an argument on either sides favor. As i quote from round 2 "there are also teenagers who need these jobs to help support there family as much as some other people." This means that even though there may be poor people who need those jobs, there are also teenagers that also need that same job. His claim is invalid.

Secondly he attacks my value of economic stability by saying that I am not meeting the ultimate goal. Yet I do not need to meet the ultimate goal, i just need to show that it is not immoral for a teenager to accept a summer job. Not only that but my opponent cannot achieve his overall societal stability without economic stability. Furthermore since this resolution is dealing with whether people should accept jobs in time of recession My value links better than his, so all in all you can disregard his argument that his value is, if at all, any better than mines. His value should be taken 2cnd priority to economic stability.

My opponent furthermore tries to stump you that my advocacy of spending does not link to a better economy. Yet id like to bring your attention to his OWN source (http://recession.org......) which, if you read, clearly states that increased spending is what is needed to avoid and get out of an economic recession. What else is better than having teenagers take up summer jobs to PAY for things that they need, why else would a teenager accept a summer job. There is a clear link that the spending of teens = a better economy which achieves 1) My value of Economic Stability (2) Increased spending compared to that of my opponent and (3) it is my contention.

Also my attacks on his position, in my last entry i have only briefly addressed his case which sounded something like this "Therefore, my opponents contention one is invalid because we should actually be giving those jobs to those who will spend there money avoiding his impact of a economic collapse..." Though my opponent brings up a good impact that there shall be people dying if those who need the money don't get it. I'd like to bring you back to the beginning where i've stated that teens and their families can also be suffering if they don't take that summer job. Another thing is that because of the position i have taken, I do not need to worry about the death of poor people, and the necessity of others. That is because, in the bigger picture, by having teens take these summer jobs and spend money (my stance) I therefore relieve the recession and avoid the impacts that my opponent proposes.

Lastly he does not address my 2cnd value of education which (my bad) have not provided a clear link. Do not consider this a voter for his side, because he cannot meet this same value. Education applies to the younger population of society and with increased spending + summer jobs teens are able to get a better education by having better textbooks during the school year, much money that anyone spends shall be contributed to public education systems, Summer jobs can bring in enough money for summer school, and many more benefits.

I have clearly provided much more to benefit society and resolve this resolution.
thank you, vote neg
mackoman_93

Pro

My opponent's opening argument can be summed up in the quote, "...there are also teenagers that also need that same job". This is how my opponent claims that my position is invalid. [Attack #1] His argument has no warrant and does not provide any substantiation for his claim. He says that teens NEED these jobs just as much as people who have a family to provide for. [Attack #2] Furthermore, there is a very sharp contradiction in this premise. He claims that teens NEED these jobs just as much however, this is not what his evidence says. [Attack #3] His evidence talks about leisure spending as a means of getting out of a recession NOT spending money on things that my opponent would like to suggest that one NEEDS. Additionally, parents and/or guardians (the ones responsible for raising the teen in question) should be the ones to buy things that said teen NEEDS (they CANNOT do this if the are UNEMPLOYED).

On to the values debate...

His value of economic stability is still mitigated by my value of societal stability, as [Attack #1] economic stability is concerned with only one aspect of societal stability. [Attack #2] My opponent does not advocate for societal stability at all in fact. Consider the following quote from a debate.org use Me100, "I do not need to worry about the death of poor people". With these words he directly accepts my impact of spiritual destruction and genocide (not a very stable society). [Attack #3] Given that he has accepted my impact of genocide and spiritual destruction and ultimately the destabilization of society, his value of economic stability doesn't really matter.

On his value of education , he said it himself, "(my bad) have not provided a clear link". [Attack #1] This mean that all his second value is is some nebulous, disconnected thought that has no link to the resolution. [Attack #2] The only link that he does provide is excessively weak. He says that with a summer job teens could pay for education. While this is a lovely thought it has a few problems. [Attack #2 Sub-point A] In the affirmative world, where there is societal stability (not genocide), the parents of guardians would be able to pay for their teens education (in large part because they will be EMPLOYED). [Attack #2 Sub-point B] Summer jobs are typically not enough to pay for education like college (maybe dorms, food, and such; but not college). Therefore his value of education also has no real link.

In the end my opponent has again attempted to coerce a negative vote out of you. This time by attempting to blur the (rather blatant) line between NEED and WANT.

All I ask is that you remember the words, "...I do not need to worry about the death of poor people..." --Me100
Debate Round No. 3
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by Me100 7 years ago
Me100
Oh mackoman.. cherry picking my words XD...
Posted by drkcloud123 7 years ago
drkcloud123
i give props to PRO for siding such a hard to argue point of view, although reality wise i don't think its really feasible to say that summer jobs are eliminating job availability when you look at the fact that teenager DONT have access to jobs that would allow a normal person to live on. 6-7 dollars an hour is not even CLOSE to a half decent standard of living, sub-lower class perhaps, but not even the lower class can live on minimum wage really....and more likely then not, the teenagers are gonna be paid even LESS then minimum wage
Posted by 1stLordofTheVenerability 7 years ago
1stLordofTheVenerability
It's not immoral. Perhaps selfish and unethical, but immoral? I hardly think so.
Posted by Rockylightning 7 years ago
Rockylightning
mackoman

thats just not cool, votebombing the second the debates over?
Posted by Me100 7 years ago
Me100
Hope you have fun with your last rebuttal mack o.O
let's see what happens in voting
Posted by mackoman_93 7 years ago
mackoman_93
REALLY short
Posted by BlazingSleet 7 years ago
BlazingSleet
wow, what a short 1NC
Posted by Me100 7 years ago
Me100
oh yeah.. this ha ha, time to respond!!
Posted by mackoman_93 7 years ago
mackoman_93
LD(ish) format :P I got excessively board while typing the case and decided to take it to the extreme lol
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by Atheistassociate 7 years ago
Atheistassociate
Me100mackoman_93Tied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Vote Placed by Me100 7 years ago
Me100
Me100mackoman_93Tied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by BlazingSleet 7 years ago
BlazingSleet
Me100mackoman_93Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:43 
Vote Placed by Rockylightning 7 years ago
Rockylightning
Me100mackoman_93Tied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:24 
Vote Placed by mackoman_93 7 years ago
mackoman_93
Me100mackoman_93Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07