The Instigator
HerMajestyTheQueen
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
GaryBacon
Pro (for)
Winning
8 Points

Should employers be allowed to discard resumes of currently unemployed applicants?

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...
GaryBacon
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/25/2014 Category: Economics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 471 times Debate No: 46703
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (2)

 

HerMajestyTheQueen

Con

I think that no, employers should NOT be allowed to discard the resumes of currently unemployed applicants because I believe that it would greatly increase the percentage of unemployed citizens in the U.S., which would most likely cause a recession, which would cause the U.S. to enlarge their debt in order to pump more and more money into our economy, which would have previously crashed due to the stock market collapsing, which would (all together) cause our government to go into complete anarchy.
GaryBacon

Pro

To have employers retain all of the resumes from previous applicants is not pragmatic. Employers go through periods where they are not hiring. At such times, it does not make sense to retain old resumes. Furthermore, many unemployed individuals search for jobs at more than one employer. This means that many older resumes would be pointless, since the applicant may have already moved on to a new position.

Also, the amount of paper build up would be out of control. At a certain point, it only makes sense to discard some old resumes that are laying around. To keep piling them up would lead to a ridiculous situation where it would be impossible to go through all of the resumes.
Debate Round No. 1
HerMajestyTheQueen

Con

HerMajestyTheQueen forfeited this round.
GaryBacon

Pro

My opponent claims that discarding resumes "would greatly increase the percentage of unemployed citizens in the U.S." But this is simply not true. Keeping someone's resume on file does not in any way give that person employment. Nor does throwing out the old resumes create an increase in the unemployment rate.

Simply put, it is far more productive to eventually discard old resumes than to have to retain all of them. Retention of all resumes would mean that after a certain number are accumulated, they would have to be filed. This would take away time from doing something more productive. It would also be a pointless and a useless job. If this is the thought process of my opponent (i.e. to create useless jobs in order to help employment) then I think it is not a good idea. Employers cannot afford to do such things.
Debate Round No. 2
HerMajestyTheQueen

Con

HerMajestyTheQueen forfeited this round.
GaryBacon

Pro

Employers receive resumes on a fairly regular basis. If they were to retain and go through the older resumes, this would have to be done at the expense of the newer resumes. Does it make sense to go through old resumes, where the applicant would have a lower chance of still wanting the job? Of course not. The logical thing to do is to review the newer resumes where the person is still looking for a job.

Another point is that we are now living in an age of recycling. The old resumes could be recycled and help the environment, rather than having them sit around and gather dust.

Note: Each round we had only 5 minutes to post an argument. This means I could not type as extensively as I would've liked. It is a ridiculous time control.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Actionsspeak 3 years ago
Actionsspeak
HerMajestyTheQueenGaryBaconTied
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: FF
Vote Placed by oculus_de_logica 3 years ago
oculus_de_logica
HerMajestyTheQueenGaryBaconTied
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: FF; Pro made more convincing arguments and due to the forfeits could make a better and more detailed case.