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

To be labeled an american company should they be allowed to outsource almost all their jobs.

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...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/11/2014 Category: Economics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 390 times Debate No: 66813
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (2)




America is a business man's paradise. Our government provides safe haven and a plethora of benefits to american businesses. The problem is many of these businesses aren't american businesses they are foreign businesses coming to america my making their headquarters here. Thats it. Also most actual american businesses don't deserve to be american business's because over 80% of there work forces is abroad. That is what this debate will be about. Should business's that outsource most of there employees be aloud to retain there status as an american business?


Thank you for the debate. Okay, from the outset let me say Con’s position is that theoretically is preferable to Pro’s position which in practice leads to problems, some mentioned by my opponent already, specifically labor. However, let me take me entertain Con’s side a moment longer because I think it is incredibly sensible as an idea.

By allowing large multinational corporations to receive generous subsidies, carve out loopholes to avoid paying taxes (that would otherwise go toward basic services including roads, schools, teachers et cetera), and not only is it true they reap the rewards but over the last several decades they have taken become more rapacious by outsourcing jobs to other countries.

So I want to concede those indisputable points because they are likely the ones my opponent is going to refine over the course of our debate.

Okay, so am I adopting my opponent’s position and conceding the debate? No, with all the horrible dysfunctional features of multinational corporations, it proves easier to defend than the one from the other side. How is this so?

First, let me note that technically an American (federal chartered) is problematic, meaning while federally chartered companies exist they are the exception, to the rule: state charted corporations.

Quick explanation: what is a charter?

Corporations exist through charters. Charters are existential contracts between states and companies granting rights as well as protections under a particular, meaning individual state’s specific legal framework. For instance, roughly 60% of the 500 largest corporations incorporated in the state of Delaware. One salient standout is Walmart, whose total employees outnumber the entire population of the state and then some.

Question: why is a company like Walmart, Goldman Sachs, or BP chartered in that particular state—especially since their presence and profit from the state is nominal?

Simple Answer: corporations incorporate, gain charters from Delaware because the state since the early 1910s has a reputation for protecting corporations from litigation from outside parties, wide latitude in the creation and structure of a company’s internal affairs, and the Delaware legal system is, for anyone aspiring to become a wealth corporate attorney the only body of law that matters.

[Ancillary question readers might ask out of curiosity why does Delaware prostitute itself to business. Again, quick simple: the state derives a large proportion of their revenue from the initial and annual fees of those charters. This is in effect a steady stream of revenue and residence of Delaware gain the benefit that with this supplementary form of revenue they can pay less for the services.

Quick history of business charters

Assuming that everyone is familiar and well-versed in earlier Colonial history to realize the thirteen colonies, were original chartered as joint-stock companies, for-profit businesses, handed out by the English crown for political reasons or as a substitute for decades accrued from quixotic military ventures on the continent.

Later the colonies, then states that comprise the United States continued in this fashion. There are number of historical, political, and economic context to consider but because I have already notice a tendency so far to follow digression for longer than needed I will overlook. Getting to the point, the system that exists today would be difficult to dismantle.

But what if we did dismantle this system? Well, likely anyone who has an interest in the Constitution as well as an interest in understanding how it works in practice knows such an act (assuming in some hypothetical pipedream legislation could pass) would immediately and without a doubt be ruled unconstitutional.

Why would it be unconstitutional?

I am only an admirer of our legal system and do not profess to be well versed in the arcane minutia of Constitutional law but every American should know it violates:


No State shall...pass any...Law impairing the Obligation of Con-tracts....


[I]n the just preservation of rights and property, it is understood and declared, that no law ought ever to be made, or have force in the said territory, that shall, in any manner whatever, interfere with or affect private contracts or engagements, bona fide, and without fraud, previously formed.

[For those who want to read the best legal mind in American history should take the time and read some of Chief Justice Marshall’s majority decisions, they are revered in legal circles in the same way religious observers treat sacred text.]

Precedent on such issues is so vast that even in a jackass like myself can think up one from high school history class: Trustees of Dartmouth Coll. v. Woodward 17 U.S. 518 (1819).[1]

Overall, this post has been a series of digressions but I would like to believe there is redeemable material embedded throughout.

So what do I want readers to take away from Pro first round statements?

Corporate Charters

How states are the primary actors in incorporation/creation

History and organization of the American economic system and its legal underpinnings

Issues I expect my opponent to raise after reading first round comments:

Pro is circumventing the larger framework of the debate, one centered on the normative issue “should.” That is fair. However, any successful normative debate as well as advocate or dissent must consider or even imagining what such proposals would look like.

[1] Constitutional cases although has all the excitement of putting up drywall sheets, often provides some pretty contentious battles (read the best dissents of Holmes or another great dissenter Ruth Bader Ginsburg today. Anyway, I want to provide a link to the transcript of the Courts cases because readers may not know how to access these resources:

However, if you just want the barebones, a quick summary you can check it out here:

The website above provides access to just about every major and minor SC decision you could ever desire

Debate Round No. 1


The fact that big business is able to sway politicians and get american benefits yet they don't contribute anything but taxes(which they should be paying more). What these company's should be forced to do is to have at least 70% of its work force in america. This would re vitalize the economy and would validly make them an American business.


Okay, Con made a reasonable argument last round. However, in its specifics presents both an unrealistic, impractical, and unpopular view, specifically where my opponents subjects that 70% of the workforce must be American. Let me provide three examples of companies many people associate or would like say are quintessentially American companies: GE (General Electric), Oracle (tech company), and Caterpillar (farming equipment). What are the statistics; surely, these companies use exclusively American workers, right? Nowhere close. Currently, based on figures from the commerce department even the percentage of foreign and domestic workers is an even split. Microsoft another example, no one would likely mistake it or its founder Bill Gates as anything but American but according to the Wall Street Journal even Microsoft’s percentage barely reaches the 60% threshold.[1] Here is a graph of the general trend over the decade or so:

Pro would like to reiterate a point from last round (one I thought I exhausted) the idea of an American company is a fiction—granted exceptions exists but the debate is about the general, conventional forms of economic organization in the United States. Caterpillar, GE, Oracle, Microsoft are all incorporated under Delaware law, not through federal incorporation.

I would like to ask my opponent to provide examples of American companies and state two or three concrete characteristics of that distinguish American companies from foreign companies.

From Pro’s perspective Con appears to engage in a normative debate (should or ought), but does not provide even the most basic descriptions, definitions, or examples.

You could imagine a hypothetical debate where I said Major League Baseball should only draft American athletes. Obvious questions would arise, including what I mean by “American?” For example, do I mean born on American soil? What about individuals with dual citizenship who have never spend any significant portion of their lives inside the US would that count? What about individuals with temporary Visa or illegal immigrants that have lived their entire lives in the United States but the government does not recognize them as US citizens?

Anyone success would require delineating these possibilities, if not in a specific way, at least clear enough to provide any meaning. Therefore, given that my opponent did not elaborate or expand on the general points made in round one. Pro asks that Con provide at least a general definition of “American” company because it is unclear to me.

[Question to Con]: So is BP (British Petroleum) an American company or a foreign company? BP is incorporated in Delaware, they hire American workers, so should they receive subsidies? Does Con consider them to an American or foreign corporation? How did Con make that determination?

Originally and I continue to believe Con has a strong argument to make that I hope to will develop in Round 3, however both Round 1 and Round 2 seem to be Con opinion that does not clearly explain the problem nor consider potential problems that result from adopting his position. If Con plan to abandon the normative position, then please provide some empirical support otherwise what are debating is nothing more than a vague, generic statement derived solely from personal feeling. I sympathize and agree with Con from on an emotional level, even fairness but that is irrelevant since this is a debate not whose opinion do you agree with more. If that were the case, we could consult one of the innumerable polls on DDO to determine who wins. However, perhaps my opponent used Round 1 and 2 as a decoy and Pro is simply cannot see the surprise attack waiting in the next round. Anyway, good luck to my opponent in Round 3.

[1] David Wessel. “Big U.S. Firms Hiring Abroad.” The Wall Street Journal, April 19, 2011.

Debate Round No. 2


jackthesnack forfeited this round.


Okay, with my opponent’s forfeiture in the last round, which prevented any substantial rebuttal to Pro’s arguments developed over the course of the debate, I urge voters to consider given their vote to Pro.

Reasons to vote for Pro:

Pro provided arguments, backed by actual evidence, and provide background combined with relevant contextual information to very point

Pro should get points for sources (this seems indisputable)

3. Pro managed to address every point raised by Con during the debate. However, Con did not attempt to answer any of the issues or seemingly unrealistic proposals provided, especially since it would fundamentally alter the economy, and would definitely cause more harm than good

Con’s forfeiture in the last round should be taken into consideration as well

Final Point on the issue:

Con provided an argument that works as a good concept but one that is (1) impossible to implement in the context of the world economy, not to mention no political party would develop such legislation (see subsequent points) (2) would be unconstitutional based on precedent (3) would mean almost every major corporation in the US would lose its charter (4) point three would ultimately contribute to more jobs being lost than gained, negating any positive net result (5) Con did explain nor seemed to grasp that corporation exist through charters provided by state, notably the state of Delaware for the largest companies in the world.

Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by cheyennebodie 1 year ago
If government and unions would let them alone, they would not have to go off shore to stay in business.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by lannan13 1 year 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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture
Vote Placed by Valkrin 1 year 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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Nice read and effort by Pro. Conduct to Pro as Con forfeited. S/G to Pro as well. Args go to Pro as Pro put lots of thought, effort, and even diagrams to prove his point. Con mainly provided a small block of text (although in one case it was valid). Sources to Pro as Con used none.