The Instigator
brian_eggleston
Pro (for)
Losing
3 Points
The Contender
ciphermind
Con (against)
Winning
39 Points

The Government should do more to promote Jewish businesses.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+4
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/15/2009 Category: Politics
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 3,477 times Debate No: 10124
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (14)
Votes (8)

 

brian_eggleston

Pro

Jewish businessmen are renowned for prioritising good value for money and providing excellent customer service over making profits, but, unfortunately, this unselfish commitment to public service means that the Jewish business community is missing out on extra cash. I'm sure that if they advertised the fact their stores were Jewish owned, the public would make a point of favouring them with their custom more often. The trouble is, as well as not caring about money, Jewish businessmen are very modest.

With this in mind, surely it is time for the Government to step in and paint Stars of David on all Jewish-owned store windows and place government notices on the doors reading "THIS BUSINESS IS RUN BY JEWS"?

That way, the public would be in a position to make an informed decision on which shops to patronise and which shops to avoid.

Thank you.
ciphermind

Con

I would like to thank my opponent for presenting the opportunity to debate.

I will be arguing with the following contentions:
If Jewish businessmen's stores were marked with a Star of David, it would be an ever-present reminder of the Holocaust, if the government were to mark a store physically it would violate basic principles of property rights, and that this resolution blatantly violates the First Amendment to the Constitution.

Contention 1: Nazi Germany/Discrimination

My opponent has stated that Jewish businessmen are very modest, and therefore would not put such markings on their store themselves. But I doubt that this is the true reason that they do not. Let's look at the largest tragedy in Jewish history, the Holocaust, in which 6 million Jews were horrifically killed by the Nazi regime. Before sending Jews to ghettos and eventually concentration camps, the Nazis marked every Jewish owned store, not only so that people would avoid it, but so that people would discriminate against the people inside.

In Nazi Germany, Jewish store owners recieved death threats from the public sometimes, that never came before the markings were put up. These markings were humiliating and were a sign of "uncleanliness" from the Germans. Not even a century after these travesties were committed, my opponent suggests re-marking the shops of Jews, in EXACTLY (1)(2)(3) the same way as the Nazis, which opened up a stream of threats and discrimination towards those shop owners.

Contention 2: If Jewish store owners are too "modest" to mark their store themselves, why should the government be allowed to mark their stores for them?

If this resolution were to be passed, as my opponent said, stores that were previously unmarked at the discretion of the owner would now be forcibly marked by the government, but what right does the government have to paint a Star of David on a store? If a man owns a shop, the US government has NO RIGHT; ZERO; NIL; to paint ANYTHING on that store. PERIOD. It is a shop owner's private prerogative to choose whether or not his religious beliefs are identified visibly on his body, home, store, car, and everything else he owns. The government would basically be vandalizing Jewish business owner's stores with unwanted graffiti!

Contention 3: This resolution cannot be passed the US as it violates the First Amendment.

The very first line of the First Amendment to the US Constitution is "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." This resolution as presented by my opponent is marking Jewish businesses for the purpose of bringing them more business. This blatantly respects the establishment of the Jewish religion and it's place in business, and therefore cannot be passed.

Statement of Summation:
Therefore, because this resolution: is Naziesque and discriminatory, violates basic property rights, and violates the United States of America's First Amendment, it must be negated.

(1) http://isurvived.org...
(2) http://xroads.virginia.edu...
(3) http://tinyurl.com...
Debate Round No. 1
brian_eggleston

Pro

Firstly, I would like to thank Ciphermind for posting such an intelligent and eloquent rebuttal. I would also like to take this opportunity to bring to the members' attention the fact that my opponent is only 15 years old and I think that deserves to be recognised when it comes to the voting period.

That said, I'm sure he wouldn't want me to cut him any slack on account of his relative youth and I will duly answer his arguments to the best of my ability.

My opponent's first contention relies upon the supposition that people in 21st Century America would behave in the same way as some people that were indoctrinated with Nazi propaganda did in 1930's and 40's Germany.

I don't think they would and I can prove it. Firstly, American consumers willingly pay the extra for their food so that billions of dollars can be donated to Jewish certification outfits every year. This is called the ‘Kosher Tax'.

For those of you who live outside the US, hundreds of thousands of separate food products sold in the United States carry a (K) or (U) symbol on the packaging which denotes that a Jewish-owned certification company has approached the manufacturer of the product and demanded a hefty sum in return for providing a rabbi to declare the product in question "kosher" with the threat of a boycott from the Jewish and conservative Christian communities being offered as an extra incentive to hand over the cash. For example, just one of these Jewish certificate outfits, OK Kosher, collects money from over 1,500 different food manufacturers.

http://zope.gush-shalom.org...
http://www.okkosher.com...

That may sound like some sort of clandestine scam run along the lines of a protection racket, but in the US this Kosher Tax caper is perfectly legal and since the American public don't complain about it we must assume that they view the tax as a way of showing their affection for Jewish businessmen.

Secondly, people actually trust Jewish businessmen with very large amounts of money, because, not despite, the fact that they are Jewish. For example, Bernie Madoff, perhaps America's best known Jewish businessmen, counted many vulnerable elderly people as well as Jewish charities and high net worth Jews amongst his customers. Yes, his investment scheme turned out to be a massive fraud and his clients lost $65 billion between them, but that's not the point – the point is his customers trusted him because he was Jewish, even if they weren't Jewish themselves.

http://nymag.com...

His second and third contentions relate to the legality in the United States of daubing Jewish shop windows with Stars of David and erecting signs proudly advertising their Jewish ownership on their doors. Since I am not American, I don't feel qualified to argue with him on American law and the Constitution but I will say that both could and should be changed in order to accommodate my proposal. You see, it's not just the Jewish businessmen that I am concerned about: it is their families as well. Goodwill and generosity doesn't put food on the table and I would hate to think that little Jewish kiddies were going to bed hungry because their fathers were too modest to promote their businesses properly.

In conclusion, I urge you to vote Pro, if not for the sake of Jewish businessmen themselves, then for their unnecessarily impoverished dependants.

Thank you.
ciphermind

Con

I would like to thank my opponent for not arguing any differently in spite of my age. Also I would like to apologize for not investigating your profile and seeing you were from the United Kingdom, so I will recant my third contention as it obviously does not apply in the U.K, but will not rescind my first and second contentions, as they apply to any country. I would also request that this confusion not be taken into account when voting, as the specific government was not specified in the resolution.

Rebuttal 1:

This resolution has absolutely nothing to do with kosher food items, and is entirely about whether or not the government should promote Jewish businesses, as stated by my opponent, by marking their stores. It does not matter whether or not the general population would react in the same way as 30's and 40's Germans, but the fact that Jewish businesses would be marked would obviously open the door for discrimination that otherwise would not have been present, as now everyone knows that a Jew owns a particular business. Also the idea of the Holocaust is a tragic subject for the Jewish people and to mark their businesses in EXACTLY the same way as the Germans who wrote "Jew" and painted a Star of David would be perceived as hateful and mocking.

Rebuttal 2:

My second contention DOES relate to the United Kingdom's government encroaching on private property and forcing these markings upon business owners. I would like to elaborate on why these markings would be forced upon Jewish store owners. If the Jews running businesses were too "modest" to mark their store them self, then by what my opponent said, the government will either ask people if they would like to have their store marked, or force it. It would be irrelevant to propose this resolution if the markings were optional, as then it would still be up to the business owner who would still be too "modest" to mark their business. Therefore this resolution seeks to mark businesses whose owners object to the markings, thus infringing upon their property rights. There is no reason this does not apply to the United Kingdom.

Rebuttal 3:

As I addressed in the introduction to this round of argument, this obviously does not apply in the United Kingdom, but my third contention did not provide reasons why the resolution should not be passed, but only why it could not be passed. The meat of my argument still stands.

Anecdotally, there is no ability to use Fiat Power in the United States to overrule the Constitution as my opponent suggested. Any amendment must be ratified by the people, not through a federal Congress.

Voting Issues:

My opponent's only argument for the government promoting Jewish businesses is that they deserve/should receive more patronage through marking of stores with a Star of David and "Jew". I have shown that this is exactly what the Nazis have done, and would be applying lemon juice to the wounds of the Jewish people, and how this resolution would violate a business owner's personal property rights by forcing them to identify their religious beliefs on the exterior of their store. Therefore because this resolution would be a constant reminder of the Holocaust for the Jews, and because it violates individual and property rights, this resolution must be negated.

Voting Suggestions:
Before the Debate: Whatever you thought prior to reading.

After the Debate: Whoever you thought did the better debating.

Conduct: Both My opponent and I conducted ourselves well throughout the entirety of the debate - TIE

Spelling and Grammar: Again, TIE as our grammar and spelling were about the same - TIE

Convincing Arguments: Vote Con, as I have shown why this resolution is inherently discriminatory and unfair - CON

Reliable Sources: Vote Con, as I showed that my opponents suggestion was EXACTLY what the Nazis did and backed it up with photographic evidence - CON

I thank my opponent again for this opportunity to debate.
Debate Round No. 2
14 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by ZT 7 years ago
ZT
The bit about the kosher "tax" is misleading and borderline offensive. First, a company can choose to not make kosher products, and consumers can choose which to buy. But more importantly, when Brian says Jews would "threaten a boycott" he's falsly implying that the point of keeping kosher is to enforce some kind of morals on society. Even the strictest interpretation of Jewish law says that it does not matter if non-Jews keep kosher; it only applies to those who accept the Torah. So, a more accurate description is that Jews feel they arn't allowed to eat certain foods, and kosher certification is an optional way to market a product to Jews (as well as some non-Jews who don't really understand what Kashrut is but think it's hip, though I predict that's a passing fad.) However, the rules of kashrut (as drawn up centuries ago) are complicated and require training to understand, so it's perfectly fair to pay kosher certifiers for thier effort. And, since there are hundreds of organizations out there, there's enough competition to keep prices low. So, I'm going to go "con" on conduct.
Posted by brian_eggleston 7 years ago
brian_eggleston
Good point karinah07, why should they?

I just don't understand why Jewish shopkeepers don't paint Stars of David on their store windows and put up "RUN BY JEWS" signs on the doors themsleves - I mean, it wouldn't cost all that much, would it? ;)
Posted by brian_eggleston 7 years ago
brian_eggleston
...and somewhere in the distance a dog barks...
Posted by karinah7 7 years ago
karinah7
bias. why should they get anymore promotion than everyone else
Posted by RoyLatham 7 years ago
RoyLatham
Hmmm, I admire Brian for walking the line between satirical wit and ill-conceived dopiness. It takes courage to walk that line. However, this particular debate challenge was ill-conceived and dopey. Con accurately dissected it.
Posted by brian_eggleston 7 years ago
brian_eggleston
An astute observation, Korashk ;)

Actually, I sincerely hope nobody took me at my word!

Having said that, this debate was a useful vehicle to highlight the issue of the Kosher Tax.

Thanks for the compliments, b/t/w guys!
Posted by Korashk 7 years ago
Korashk
When I read all of this I couldn't help but think that brian_eggleston was being facetious. Especially in rounds 1 and 2.
Posted by alto2osu 7 years ago
alto2osu
Oh, Brian. Brian, Brian, Brian. :D You make my day, sir.
Posted by nheilbrun 7 years ago
nheilbrun
age should never play a factor in a debate, nor should it be mentioned. We should all be equal here.
Posted by Danielle 7 years ago
Danielle
Brian's 2 round debates are win.
8 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Vote Placed by Kenostic 7 years ago
Kenostic
brian_egglestonciphermindTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by ciphermind 7 years ago
ciphermind
brian_egglestonciphermindTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by ZT 7 years ago
ZT
brian_egglestonciphermindTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 7 years ago
RoyLatham
brian_egglestonciphermindTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:03 
Vote Placed by Korashk 7 years ago
Korashk
brian_egglestonciphermindTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Vote Placed by StephenAlsop 7 years ago
StephenAlsop
brian_egglestonciphermindTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by nheilbrun 7 years ago
nheilbrun
brian_egglestonciphermindTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Vote Placed by LB628 7 years ago
LB628
brian_egglestonciphermindTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:30