Should age discrimination be made illegal in the workplace?
Debate Rounds (3)
I negate the resolution Resolved: age discrimination should be made illegal in the workplace.
I present the following definitions from the legal dictionary:
Age discrimination: unequal treatment of an employee by an employer because of the employee's age.
Workplace: any or all places where people are Report this Argument
a) Depending on the job, the employer should concentrate on the ability of the person that is being employed. For example if I am a fashion designer and I need someone to help me pick out the the main piece of my runway, then I would look for someone who knows about style and that is aware of the likes of the teens or my clients, this could be someone young, because she is the age of my clients.
Or if I'm looking for someone to help me with my business and in how to invest, I would look for someone with experience, someone who has made mistakes in the past and wont make them again, this could be a 50 year old guy, obviously if he can put up with the work, and it can also be someone young that knows a lot about that stuff. What I'm trying to say is that the elderly may be just as capable as someone young.
b) for now I'm just stating my first argument.
thanks, remember to criticize.
-- My Arguments --
Observation: Age discrimination can affect those of any age, but primarily affects those of a very young age (18 and under) or an older age (50 + years).
Observation: By arguing that age discrimination should not be illegal, I'm not saying that it age discrimination should be mandated or even commonly present in the application process, but merely that it should not be outlawed and should remain an option to employers.
Argument 1: Age discrimination protects the property of the employers. Employers have the right to hire employees who are most likely, in the mind of the employer, to be able to perform the tasks necessary to the job. Employers need to be able to keep the option of discrimination in regards to age in order to hire people who they believe will have optimal performances and that will fit in with the rest of the workforce. For example, it may not be beneficial to hire a teenager into an exclusively adult setting because of the level of possible immaturity and lack of work habits that the teen may bring.
Argument 2: Age discrimination can benefit those discriminated against. In some jobs, such as construction, there can be serious risks to the workers involved. By not allowing physically inferior individuals such as young teenagers or elderly citizens work in such dangerous jobs, the employers are protecting those who are more likely to come to serious harm.
Argument 3: Making age discrimination illegal is irrelevant. It's incredibly easy to come up with an excuse not to hire someone such as "they're under qualified for the job" even if the real reason for not hiring them is their age. Because of this, making age discrimination illegal doesn't actually do any good because it is not feasible to enforce this law even if the intentions are good.
-- Refutation --
a) "Depending on the job, the employer should concentrate on the ability of the person that is being employed." This is entirely true. However, ability is often linked to age and therefore employers should have the option to make their decision about who has the best ability based on age.
" . . . if I am a fashion designer . . . then I would look for someone who knows about style and that is aware of the likes of the teens . . . this could be someone young." This is a perfect example of acceptable age discrimination. Teenagers are more likely to relate to and understand the interests of other teenagers and therefore would be a more logical choice for this position than an older individual.
"I would look for someone with experience" Once again, my opponent is providing evidence that there is acceptable age discrimination. Older people are more likely to have more experience, so it would be perfectly logical and just for an employer to hire an older individual for some jobs.
-- Critiques --
Overall, good, I obviously can't say anything about your refutation yet because it didn't post my arguments in the first argument, sorry about that.
I like the thought behind your first argument, however if you look at it what you're saying is actually contradicting the position you're taking. By saying that in a particular job some age groups would be more useful and fit for carrying out the job you're saying that age discrimination is in fact okay. I don't know what your other arguments are yet so I don't want to suggest something, but be careful to not contradict yourself or your position within your case.
"Age discrimination protects the property of the employers. Employers have the right to hire employees who are most likely, in the mind of the employer, to be able to perform the tasks necessary to the job."-Con
Yes, but then this wouldn't be necessarily age discrimination because then you're focusing on the ability of the employee and not the age, yes sometimes age comes with the ability but maybe you're judging to fast because sometimes an 25 year-old can have the same ability as a 40 year-old, but this does not apply to everyone.
"Age discrimination can benefit those discriminated against. In some jobs, such as construction, there can be serious risks to the workers involved."-Pro
Yes, but maybe the employee is accepting to take the risk and he knows what he's going up against, so this decision of risking it or not should be from the one taking the job.
"Making age discrimination illegal is irrelevant. It's incredibly easy to come up with an excuse not to hire someone such as "they're under qualified for the job""- pro
That excuse to not hire someone is because he is not able to do it, not because he is old or too young. Yes maybe the reason he can't do it is because he is too young, but maybe another person the same age may be able to do, it depends on the skills and knowledge the person has, sometimes it differs depending on age, but not always.
A) Having few older workers increases the amount the government has to pay for unemployment and other benefits and it also decreases tax revenues.
B) Discrimination discourages potentially skilled job seekers to apply, from this the employers have a smaller group of workers from where to choose and then fail to make the most of the population's skills.
C) By protecting a a group in society that is often excluded we raise the level of equality.
Badgerclaw22 forfeited this round.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Cobo 5 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||7||0|
Reasons for voting decision: Forfiet
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.