The Instigator
Pro (for)
5 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

Should companies be able to refuse service to someone based on race, sex, age, or any factor?

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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/9/2015 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 743 times Debate No: 73207
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (10)
Votes (1)




Criterion - Freedom
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.


when you are a millionaire you do what to want
Debate Round No. 1


I'd like to point out that my opponent has not responded to any of the arguments I made, but only presented one argument in Round 1. According to commonly held debate theory, failing to respond to an argument is tantamount to conceding the argument itself. So basically, Con has just conceded the entire Pro case, so a Pro vote is already justified.

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.


No need to write gigantic texts...
Debate Round No. 2


As pointed out by Con, there is no longer any need to make further arguments. As we wrap up this debate, I'd just like to point you to take a look at the arguments I made in the last two rounds. Throughout the debate, Con has failed to present any arguments to support the Con side. It is commonly held debate theory that new arguments cannot be presented in the last round of a debate, since the other side cannot respond to them, so I would ask you to disregard any arguments Con presents in Round 3. At the end of the day, the only side that has supported their side of the resolution at all is Pro. Vote Pro, vote for freedom and liberty.


Debate Round No. 3
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Geekhawk 3 years ago
Iamright did not even provide any arguments whatsoever...
Posted by GoOrDin 3 years ago
I am Pro for Pro. good job for taking up this debate. I agree with you entirely.

You cannot judge individuals, but you can judge their actions.** therefor you can discriminate against people without getting to personal discrimination, and avoid sex, gender and age legalities.
Posted by Iamright58 3 years ago
@BarbieSoFetch , you are the idiot! Go do something else and stop insulting people! The only waste of time I had is talking to you!
Posted by WikiCopter 3 years ago
IKR? haha lol. I actually wanted to have a real debate, because I want to really think through this issue. If any of you want to have a real debate, then feel free to challenge me.
Posted by tejretics 3 years ago
Easy win for @WikiCopter :D
Posted by BarbieSoFetch 3 years ago
@lamright68 You're an ignorant idiot! You are a waste of time when it comes to these debates! You give no substantial evidence or opinions.
Posted by WikiCopter 3 years ago
I would have loved to debate you :)
Posted by PeppermintPenguin 3 years ago
I would have loved to take this debate.
Posted by Iamright58 3 years ago
I realise you get mad when you loose AidanRies and yeah go look and see how stupid is HE!
Posted by AidanRies 3 years ago
Don't even bother with this guy, look at his other debate against me.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Hunts 3 years ago
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:50 
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.