Instigator / Pro
7
1518
rating
5
debates
60.0%
won
Topic
#1223

Would it improve or worsen the USA's economy to have most businesses worker-owned?

Status
Finished

The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
3
0
Better sources
2
0
Better legibility
1
1
Better conduct
1
1

After 1 vote and with 5 points ahead, the winner is...

Cogent_Cognizer
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
5
Time for argument
Three days
Max argument characters
15,000
Voting period
Two weeks
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
2
1687
rating
555
debates
68.11%
won
Description

The burden of proof is shared since both of us will be making a positive claim. I will argue an economy where the above should improve the American economy. Con will argue that, in such a situation, it will worsen it.

Definitions of terms I am proposing and that con accepts by accepting the debate:
Worker-owned company: A company in which the majority of common stocks, as opposed to preferred non-voting or common non-voting stocks, in the company are owned by the employees as a whole and they have some form of representation in major business decisions(with reasonable exceptions such as if a decision needs to be done quickly by a representative or president of the company).

Common, voting stocks: Stock options in a company in which risk is taken on the investment one has in the company but is typically very likely to change in price, they are also able to vote in certain business decisions normal stockholders would, such as voting for the board of directors and potential mergers.

Common, nonvoting stock: Same as the above, but with no voting powers in choosing the board of directors or mergers.

Preferred stock options: Often does not carry voting power(sometimes can, but given the other perks this gives, businesses do not often offer voting power with these) but does provide the buyer of these stocks with a much greater likelihood of a return than other normal stocks, since they are given a return at a higher priority than those with normal stock options. Often are not as volatile as common stock options, but can be again, depending on what the business is offering.

These definitions *should* be my own, but are definitely based on various definitions(too many to list probably) I've heard throughout my life.

For the definitions of "business", "economy" etc, we will use common definitions. The definitions of any other terms I will accept from my opponent automatically when presented in round 1 unless any are very unreasonable(i.e claiming "nice" means "a jerk" or something. We all know it doesn't). I would like to think I defined the above terms in a suitable way, though I recognize I may have left out or worded something improperly. If that's the case, my opponent should let me know IN THE COMMENTS, before accepting the debate so I may change the definitions if I agree with you that I somehow misrepresented these terms.

Since I think this debate will start off with me, I will just forego most of what round 1 is used for once someone has stated interest in accepting and there are no issue with what I've brought up. That said, here is the round structure:

Round 1: To be used for clearly stating you've read the rules and definitions in this debate. You may present definitions of terms you think will be important to present that I've not done so already. We will also clearly state our position, think of it as a thesis in a written paper. Our specific evidence and arguments, however, will be presented later. But you may (and should) state the contentions you plan on arguing, as one would do in a formal English paper's thesis. Leave it unsubstantiated for now though. The only thing I will do is state my thesis.

Round 2: We will offer opening arguments and attempt to refute the contentions our opponent listed in round 1 as well as start backing up our contentions in round one with evidence and logic. DO NOT specifically refute the logic, evidence, etc the other presents in this round: only the contentions/claims made in round 1. There should be some leniency, as it's possible for someone to refute a specific argument by coincidence(though it's doubtful it's a coincidence if someone refers to a specific article someone presents in this round). This will be up to voters to decide. The voters will award conduct points accordingly, as it would be a matter of conduct.

Round 3: Each of us will refute the specific logic and evidence the other brings up in round 2. We each can also still present new arguments and supporting evidence too.

Round 4: This round and round 5 are prohibited from presenting brand new positive claims supported by evidence or logic. This round is purely intended for refutation(negative arguments) of the positive claims one's opponent has made previously OR defending arguments you've yet to defend from your opponent's offensive on your points. If you feel you've done that already sufficiently, feel free to forego this round.

Round 5: Concluding remarks and closing statements. A proper closure would restate major points, point out why your points outweigh the opponent's, stuff like that. There should be no new arguments and no rebuttals. Rebuttal would be referring to presenting evidence/logic disproving what the opponent said. An argument, in this context, means to present logic/evidence in support of one's own proposition. Neither is allowed in this round. Only comparing and contrasting the pros and cons of each position is allowed.

Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:

Con didn’t really provide any serious substantiated case, really just writing a cursory round, as required, and doing little to confirm it.

Cons case for 1/3/4 revolves around stocks not being available for investment in some way - and the detriment this would have. As pro pointed out in T2, C4; in the final round and highlighted in R3, this is not correct, and is somewhat misunderstanding.

In Cons round 3, con appears to suggest that outside owners cannot own more than 50% of the shares, and it must be considered 70% employee owned to constitute “worker owned”.

Pro outlines what “worker owned” means - that > 50 of voting stock is owned by workers; most importantly pro outlines both in his R2, but also at length in the description what “voting stocks” actually mean.

It seems con has misunderstood the description and pros argument: not grasping the difference between general “stocks” and “voting stocks”, despite it being pointed out by pro, and the description in detail

It seems pretty clear that pro is talking about a scenario where the controlling shares of the company are majority owned by workers; with a large volume of actual shares (which could dwarf the voting shares in numbers).

Given cons misunderstanding, his points 1/3/4 are largely irrelevant; as pro covered. Hedge funds and outside groups can invest heavily in companies - but will simply not be able to own a majority of voting stocks.

While I think there is an argument to be made there had con understood this issue, this was not generated within the debate, and as such cons argument seems to have clearly misunderstood the concept.

Cons final main point made was that of insider trading. Con argues that worker owned enterprises would lead to insider trading - it’s not exactly clear how or why he feels this is the case: he seems to indicate that organizations would remove a contract clause - but offers no evidence of why, or examples. As pro pointed out, worker owned organizations already exists, and these appear to have no legal issues - this seems pretty compelling that as such organizations exist without being shut down for inherent insider trading - it seems to appear that this final point is moot.

Pros case is pretty open and shut - at no point does con address anything pro said, and thus the entirety of pros case goes completely unchallenged; it is not a strategically wise move to put all eggs in one basket.

Pro provides key sources to show GDP improves with worker ownership, business
Failures decrease, and improved ability to weather changes due to offshoring, and automation.

None of these aspects were challenged In any way by con; so the benefits stand.

In general, even had con not wholly misunderstood the premise, this debate as down to facts presented by pro, and mostly opinion and assertion about what would happen by con; as a result; pro clearly wins on arguments.

Con should read carefully the debate description, and terms. Googling information to make sure he gets the detail. Also pro makes the mistake of presenting an unsourced, uncorroborated opinion. As this is a policy debate rather than a philosophy debate, that always puts you at a disadvantage ; and means your entire argument can be bought down by one or two small facts. Also, even if you’re 100% confident in the strength of your case - always rebut your opponent, if you make an error in your supporting argument, you won’t automatically lose; even if you don’t make an error, you run the risk of having your opponents sourced benefits outweighing your harms

Sources:

Con offered only two sources; simply listing hedge funds, and describing insider trading. That hedge funds exist does not show they would not invest, and showing insider trading is a law does not show it would occur - as such neither source help cons credibility.

Pros sources were clearly laid out, and highlighted how this debate was a fact vs opinion debate.

Pro cotes dive studies, Rutger, Now, a PIM metastudy, a research gate, and Jstor studies That Quantified and confirmed
his claims and general benefit of his plan.

On the one hand: pro has five scientific studies linked and cited to justify his claims; on the other, pro VERY emphatically stated “It is impractical and outrageous to assume this would benefit the economy”

The disparity in quality of sources and how they supported the individual sides warrant awarding source points.

All other points tied.