The Instigator
Chicosunion
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Zarroette
Con (against)
Winning
7 Points

Should Unions workers have at least a high school diploma prefferable a college degree?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
Zarroette
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/11/2015 Category: Education
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 576 times Debate No: 73301
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (2)

 

Chicosunion

Pro

It should be required that union workers have a college degree.
Why is it that you can only get in a union if you know someone in a union?
Why should a high school drop out get a great paying union job over a college grad that has a large loan to pay?
Zarroette

Con

I accept.

Despite my opponent's initial argument that exist in misalignment to resolution, I will assume the resolution in the title is the one to be argued. Thus, Pro has the burden of proof to show that "Unions workers have at least a high school diploma prefferable a college degree".
Debate Round No. 1
Chicosunion

Pro

Chicosunion forfeited this round.
Zarroette

Con

I am going to rebut what Pro has argued so far.


Counter-arguments


"It should be required that union workers have a college degree. Why is it that you can only get in a union if you know someone in a union? Why should a high school drop out get a great paying union job over a college grad that has a large loan to pay?"

All three of these arguments are unsupported, bare assertions, meaning that Pro's entire case thus far is a logical fallacy [1]. In other words, there is no reason to believe any of what my opponent has said. Furthermore, since Pro has the burden of proof to show that Union workers should have a certain level of education, this means that the resolution remains unaffirmed and I am still winning.

If Pro decides to present his case in the final round, I reserve the right to propose new counter-arguments to respond to any new content.


Reference

[1] http://fallacies.findthedata.com...
Debate Round No. 2
Chicosunion

Pro

The wages of union workers are in the range of 10% to 30% higher
than the wages of non union workers. Union members generally receive better or more generous fringe benefits
than similar non union workers.
Data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics" (BLS) monthly Current Population
Survey (CPS) show that the level of union membership varies among different
groups. Union members are more likely to be male, white, middle-age, work in the
private sector, and might have a high school degree.

I have two close friends, one is a high school drop out and the other can't even tie his shoe and both are in a Union.
One works for the water company as security and makes 90,000 yr. barbecuing at work. The other works for a phone system company, makes over 140,000.00 a yr. He admits to sitting there with his thumb up his butt all day. You don't even want to know what their over time is. It disgust me.

We no longer manufacturer cars because we couldn't afford the Union salaries. Unions went disarray and have destroyed the U.S. and continue to do so.
If a college grad had those jobs at least they could pay off their student loan which would help avoid another economic crash.
Zarroette

Con

Thank you, Chicosunion, for the arguments.


Counter-arguments


My opponents arguments are littered with fallacies. Overall, my opponent provides no sources to substantiate his/her arguments throughout the entire debate. Therefore, the entirety of my opponent's arguments, in both rounds, are essentially bare assertions, and thus logical fallacies [1]. On this point alone, my opponent fails to affirm the resolution.

Now, onto specific counter-arguments:


"The wages of union workers are in the range of 10% to 30% higher
than the wages of non union workers. Union members generally receive better or more generous fringe benefits
than similar non union workers.
Data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics" (BLS) monthly Current Population
Survey (CPS) show that the level of union membership varies among different
groups. Union members are more likely to be male, white, middle-age, work in the
private sector, and might have a high school degree."

So what? Even if any of this was referenced and true, why does this mean that union workers should at least a high school diploma? My opponent fails to link this to the resolution, thus it is a red-herring, which is a logical fallacy [2].


"I have two close friends, one is a high school drop out and the other can't even tie his shoe and both are in a Union.
One works for the water company as security and makes 90,000 yr. barbecuing at work. The other works for a phone system company, makes over 140,000.00 a yr. He admits to sitting there with his thumb up his butt all day. You don't even want to know what their over time is. It disgust me."

This is a text-book anecdotal argument, of which is a logical fallacy. Just because my opponent may have experienced disgust with this scenario, it does not mean that this is norm and therefore should be regulated against. In form, it is like: I knew a human is a violent psychopath whom killed someone (analogy: my opponent's complaint about the pay), therefore all humans should be locked up (analogy: therefore the resolution) [3].


"We no longer manufacturer cars because we couldn't afford the Union salaries. Unions went disarray and have destroyed the U.S. and continue to do so.
If a college grad had those jobs at least they could pay off their student loan which would help avoid another economic crash."

More bare assertions; more logically fallacious arguments [1]. My opponent gives you no reason to believe these arguments, therefore you should not beleive them.


Conclusion

I have shown that all of my opponent's arguments are logically fallacious. Therefore, since the resolution cannot be affirmed with logical fallacies, the resolution goes unaffirmed and I win this debate.


References

[1] http://fallacies.findthedata.com...
[2] http://www.nizkor.org...
[3] https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com...
Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by Yassine 1 year ago
Yassine
- I would vote Con if I had my Voting privileges, obviously!
Posted by Chicosunion 1 year ago
Chicosunion
The statement is Union workers should be required to have at least an associates degree. It is sad to see and I know of 15 union workers 3 of which did not even graduate from high school making very, very, good money. All 15 go to work and sit there with their thumb up their butt. I've worked with unions workers. They all complained like little girls to avoid work.
Give those jobs to college grads that have a tuition to pay off. I hate Unions, they ruined the country. (kitty cat) Overpaid Union Workers.
Posted by torger597 1 year ago
torger597
I am a tad confused about the topic of this.
Is the statement For/Against Unionized workers being required to have a diploma of some sort to be a part of a union?
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Le-vox-von-zhizn 1 year ago
Le-vox-von-zhizn
ChicosunionZarroetteTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: FF. Con had very reliable sources and she's the only one that had them.
Vote Placed by jzonda415 1 year ago
jzonda415
ChicosunionZarroetteTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct to Con for forfeiture. Arguments also to Con as she broke down Pro's unsupported case point by point and line by line, made a note of Pro's logical fallacies, and because Pro did not come anywhere close to fulfilling his BOP. Clear Con win. Always happy to clarify this RFD if needed.