The Instigator
Xer
Pro (for)
Winning
69 Points
The Contender
student251192
Con (against)
Losing
49 Points

Wal-Mart is good for the U.S.

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  
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: 5/28/2009 Category: Society
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 4,069 times Debate No: 8448
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (18)
Votes (17)

 

Xer

Pro

I am for Wal-Mart, as it is good for the U.S. My opponent is against Wal-Mart, as it is bad for the U.S.

I will allow my opponent to begin the debate. Thank you and good luck to whomever accepts the debate.
student251192

Con

Hello, I am here to debate about unimportance of Wal- Mart in the American economy and why the franchise is damaging to the U.S. I would like to start off by thanking my opponent for starting such a thoughtful debate and a debate that I am sure will be very enjoyable.

Wal- Mart, a company founded by Sam Walton, is damaging America's values. Musicians and record companies have to edit and censor their music so that Wal- Mart can carry it. Low quality items such as skateboards and cheap apparel are sold here, cheapening the value of real, quality items. Various scandals plague this franchise. Wal- Mart is helping everyone become McFatty's with "savings in every bag, a McDonalds in every store." Corporate is also at its worst in this sickening company, as evident with the thousands of lawsuits filed against this company by employees tired of lack of morality in this harsh business place.

Now some people may ask, "How? How exactly is Wal- Mart bad for the US. Heck, I buy my cheap apparel there!" But over time, people realize that that question answers itself. For example, a few months ago, a mom bought a brand new PSP for her 6 year old son for his birthday. When the PSP was turned on, pornographic pictures flashed on the screen. Wal- Mart claimed no responsibility, as Wal- Mart claimed that the pictures on the PSP was related to a manufacturers problem. Remember, this was a NEW PSP.

Really?

Really?

There is more to the tale of this corrupt franchise, but for now I will graciously let my opponents thoughts be heard.
Debate Round No. 1
Xer

Pro

student251192, I know this is your first debate, but you do realize that sources/links are needed in this debates to prove truth to your points? I will accept three of his statements as truth as of now, but will not accept "Various scandals plague this franchise. Wal- Mart is helping everyone become McFatty's with "savings in every bag, a McDonalds in every store."..."Corporate is also at its worst in this sickening company, as evident with the thousands of lawsuits filed against this company by employees tired of lack of morality in this harsh business place." because these statements are blatant hearsay. Especially the "McFatty's" line, seriously, what are you talking about there?

"Musicians and record companies have to edit and censor their music so that Wal- Mart can carry it."
-Wal-Mart has a policy of only selling edited, "clean" versions of albums they believe to have objectionable content. These same "edited, "clean" versions of albums they believe to have objectionable content" are the same songs that appear on the radio. Radio channels are not bashed for editing songs as it is in the public's best interest, Wal-Mart has the same, solid policy.

"Low quality items such as skateboards and cheap apparel are sold here, cheapening the value of real, quality items."
-How so? Who gets to determine low/high-quality products? And how do "low-quality" products cheapen the value of "high-quality" products? Supply and demand. If people want something, they are willing to pay more for it. Also, are you saying that Wal-Mart is the only store that sells both "low-quality" and "high-quality" products? At sporting goods store, you can buy a cheap skateboard or an $1000 kayak. One person may determine the cheap skateboard to be "high-quality" and the canoe "low-quality". And vice-versa. And you are also saying it is wrong to sell cheap apparel as it cheapens the value of expensive apparel. Once again, it is a person's right to choose between a $1 shirt from Wal-Mart and a $35 shirt from Abercrombia&Fitch.

"For example, a few months ago, a mom bought a brand new PSP for her 6 year old son for his birthday. When the PSP was turned on, pornographic pictures flashed on the screen. Wal- Mart claimed no responsibility, as Wal- Mart claimed that the pictures on the PSP was related to a manufacturers problem. Remember, this was a NEW PSP."
-To attribute an isolated incident to a chain that has more than 1000 stores in the U.S. is unfair. I could easily use a similar situation with another store. For example, I ordered Domino's the other week; I ordered 2 large cheeze pizzas and a sprite for $15. Instead the delivery man came to my door with 2 large pizza and a diet sprite, and I gave him a large $5 tip because I was feeling nice. I set the pizzas upon my kitchen counter and found that two slices of pizza were missing. I also found that the sprite was actually diet sprite. I was of course enraged and called domino's for a refund; they refused to acnowledge my situation. My verdict: all Domino's are bad and Domino's is bad for America. Is that fair? No. But it uses the same logic as your Wal-Mart example.

Forbes awarded Wal-Mart #1 on the list of most generous corporations for 2008. About 90% of its donations go to charities in the area surrounding Wal-Mart locations. The Forbes article reports "Some beneficiaries of Wal-Mart's goodwill include the Children's Miracle Network, America's Second Harvest, the Salvation Army, the American Red Cross, the United Way of America and the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation." (1)

A report by the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis says that "Wal-Mart benefits rather than harms the US economy". The Bank studies (with the results between 1985-2003) showed that personal income, overall employment, and retail employment grew in the 89 countries studied that had a Wal-Mart compared to countries that didn't. One of the greatest economists ever would also agree. Adam Smith was in fact the one who said "an exchange of goods at low prices benefits everyone". The studies also busted the myth that "Wal-Mart wipes out local jobs and depresses wages". (2)

"Wal-Mart has been at the forefront of the productivity boom," says Ohio University professor Richard Vedder, author of the book The Wal-Mart Revolution. In a market economy success goes to the business that best and most efficiently serves consumer needs. And that is what Wal-Mart does. The low prices that Wal-Mart consistently puts out for its goods are good for the consumers and the overall economy. When a consumer saves money on goods it frees them up to buy more goods. More goods being manufactured and sold is good for all parties involved. Wal-Mart accounted for 12% of productivity gains in the 90's, which also helped the rate of inflation according to the Federal Reserve. Wal-Mart has and will continue to be great for the American economy. (2)

Wal-Mart can be good for small businesses and the surrounding communities. Research from Loyola University Chicago has shown that in urban areas Wal-Mart has helped small business, while the same can not be said for rural areas. Because more consumers go to the area in which Wal-Mart is located, more consumers end up going to the small businesses. One local store owner said "Wal-Mart was just the big gorilla coming into the community … I think its more perception than reality." (3)

A 2005 study by MIT Economics professor Jeffrey Hausman tracked grocery prices paid by 10,000 families in dozens of markets, shopping at various stores over 48 months. The studies showed that Wal-Mart had lower prices in almost every category and that Wal-Mart helped shoppers who didn't even set foot in their store. Shoppers paid about 5% less for household goods in areas where there are Wal-Marts compared to not. The studies also showed that Wal-Mart can help more than any tax cut or social welfare program ever could. Hausman calculated that low income families can increase their spending power by as much as 30% just by shopping at Wal-Mart. He also found that a Wal-Mart in a town can increase overall consumer welfare by up to 3.75%. (4)

-----SOURCES-----
(1) http://www.forbes.com...
(2) http://www.msnbc.msn.com...
(3) http://www.washingtonpost.com...
(4) http://www.macleans.ca...
student251192

Con

student251192 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
Xer

Pro

My opponent has forfeited his 2nd round. I have countered all his points, and all my points stand. The resolution stands: "Wal-Mart is good for the U.S." Vote PRO.
student251192

Con

student251192 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
18 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by mongeese 7 years ago
mongeese
Wal-Mart = Amazing
...and fat. But mostly amazing.
Posted by TheSkeptic 7 years ago
TheSkeptic
2 forfeits, obvious vote to PRO.
Posted by Xer 7 years ago
Xer
Why do I keep getting votebombed? ...pretty annoying.
Posted by philosphical 7 years ago
philosphical
psssh!!!! wal-mart? good? ugh lol thats funny!
Posted by Xer 7 years ago
Xer
In your opinion, it is. But according to the law of the U.S. and the states in which Wal-Mart resides, Wal-Mart is not a monopoly.

From my debate:
"Wal-Mart can be good for small businesses and the surrounding communities. Research from Loyola University Chicago has shown that in urban areas Wal-Mart has helped small business, while the same can not be said for rural areas. Because more consumers go to the area in which Wal-Mart is located, more consumers end up going to the small businesses. One local store owner said "Wal-Mart was just the big gorilla coming into the community … I think its more perception than reality""
http://www.washingtonpost.com...
Posted by wpfairbanks 7 years ago
wpfairbanks
On the macro level, no, Walmart is not a monopoly. but to the small towns in which Walmart infiltrates, it is a monopolistic parsite.
Posted by Xer 7 years ago
Xer
True. But Wal-Mart is not a monopoly, so your point is not valid in this situation.
Posted by wpfairbanks 7 years ago
wpfairbanks
A monopoly is always bad. No exceptions. It decreases competition. From such an Adam Smith wannabe, I would expect a little better
Posted by Xer 7 years ago
Xer
Edited the debate to 3 rounds.
Posted by Xer 7 years ago
Xer
Ooh sorry wjelements. I was on my iPhone when I read that and I thought that it was wpfairbanks again.
17 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by wjmelements 7 years ago
wjmelements
Xerstudent251192Tied
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:60 
Vote Placed by NYCDiesel 7 years ago
NYCDiesel
Xerstudent251192Tied
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 TxsRngr 7 years ago
TxsRngr
Xerstudent251192Tied
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 EinShtoin 7 years ago
EinShtoin
Xerstudent251192Tied
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 rimshot515 7 years ago
rimshot515
Xerstudent251192Tied
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:70 
Vote Placed by GeoLaureate8 7 years ago
GeoLaureate8
Xerstudent251192Tied
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:70 
Vote Placed by Agnostic 7 years ago
Agnostic
Xerstudent251192Tied
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 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 Youngblood 7 years ago
Youngblood
Xerstudent251192Tied
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 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 mongeese 7 years ago
mongeese
Xerstudent251192Tied
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:70 
Vote Placed by TheSkeptic 7 years ago
TheSkeptic
Xerstudent251192Tied
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:70