Should companies be able to refuse service to someone based on race, sex, age, or any factor?
Debate Rounds (3)
Reasons to prefer - America is freedom, freedom is America. The concept of freedom and liberty is central to the America we know.
Contention 1 - Freedom is paramount. It's your company, it's your business. If other people don't like the way you run your business, that's their problem. It doesn't make sense for freedom to be restricted by prohibiting business owners to make choices for themselves.
Contention 2 - Freedom is self-correcting. Public opinion will push along those who are unwilling to act reasonably, for example, racial discrimination - nobody would do business with a company that racially discriminated on a large scale. In fact, that company would most likely be forced out of business. Freedom is self-correcting, and shouldn't be restricted arbitrarily.
Application: Indiana Memories Pizza. The company was driven out of business by the weight of public opinion. Laws against discrimination weren't necessary.
Contention 3 - Mandating equality doesn't work. It can't even be shown that creating anti-discrimination laws will actually work. This is because if people feel like obeying them, they will - if they don't they will find workarounds to keep discriminating, regardless of laws.
Application: Poll taxes and literacy tests. Until they were abolished by Constitutional amendment, African Americans were discriminated against and prevented by voting by the use of poll taxes and literacy tests that few African Americans could pay/pass because of the aftereffects of slavery, while most other people could pay/pass them. Even though prior Constitutional amendments prohibited 'discrimination' and demanded equality under the law, people who wished to discriminate against blacks passed the poll taxes and literacy tests, exploiting the loophole in the the 'equal' terminology, since everyone had to take the poll taxes and tests.
Application: Ferguson. In America's history, we have passed four or five (depending on how you count it) Constitutional amendments against different types of discrimination, and countless federal, state and local laws, and we still have a tremendous problem with racial discrimination alone, as demonstrated by Ferguson et. al., not to mention other types of discrimination. Mandating equality doesn't and won't work.
However, for the sake of argument, let's take a look at that sole Con argument. Basically, this argument is a response to the Pro Contention 2, and the basic logic behind this Con argument is that people with a lot of money will not be swayed by public opinion and boycotts like those described in Contention 2.
I have one and only one response - not shown. It's been said that "he who asserts must prove." I've arguably proven my point, while my opponent has nothing to back up his claim that millionaires do whatever they want. In addition, the one and only generic Con argument completely ignores the plain logic and the example I put forward in Contention 2.
For all of these reasons, and the uncontested Pro case put forth in the first round, I would urge you to vote Pro and for liberty and freedom.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Hunts 1 year 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:||5||0|
Reasons for voting decision: Pro was very good at getting his point across, whereas con just said a bunch of un related sentences. I tied the sources because neither showed any sources.
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.