If You Are a Partial Owner of a Company Then You Must Put Effort Into Managing it.
All stages have been completed. The voting points distribution and the result are presented below.
With 3 votes and 11 points ahead, the winner is ...
- Publication date
- Last update date
- Time for argument
- Two days
- Voting system
- Open voting
- Voting period
- One week
- Point system
- Four points
- Rating mode
- Characters per argument
I mean what do you think of worker-owned companies now that you know it is possible to not require all employees of a company to perform management duties?
Where we left off on that conversation you said you were against worker-owned companies because according to you they require all employees to perform management duties. Now that you know this to be untrue what do you think of them?
As soon as you posted #2, I knew I am going to lose but I didn't forfeit because researching and finding loopholes helps with my brain.
Okay but I am curious now how you view worker-owned companies considering your primary objection to them was the fact that they require all employees to perform management duties (as you claimed in the comment that inspired this debate) and you now know that to be false.
GG mate, you have won the debate.
"Say a paper packer was too busy operating in the Dunder Mifflin warehouse and thus cannot DIRECTLY manage the company, he still makes money and makes the company money"
Lol wait, are you trying to convince me that you are now under the impression that 'manage' is a synonym for 'contribute'?
LMAO so what happened to your forum post where you say "an owner would have to do the job of a regional manager etc."??? I don't believe for a second that you think those two words are synonyms lol.
Accidentally setting the character limit so low was annoying but the challenge was fun. I shall have to try this again some time.
Oops, I thought this was a 4 round debate (that is the reason for the last sentence in the last round). Oh well lol.
Pretty sure fauxlaw just had a stroke...
Yes, I see... I will hold comment until voting. This will be challenging as both of you are friends, and justice is blind? Good thing she's a woman who is as fickle as any other, and I am mute before her. Besides, I could always vote for Bernie. I'm beginning to feel sorry for the old white guy.
This topic is pretty straightforward. Either both the bullet points I made in round one are true and therefore the resolution is false or one of them is innaccurate and therefore my round one arguments are void, thus meaning the votes should go to my opponent.
I notice on a subsequent debate proposal, you had already increased the count. 😀
I know it right. 1000 is too compact to pack a piece of a link that supports me.
I submit that a "characters per argument" of 1,000 in each round is not enough to make typical debate argument, rebuttal, and defense. For example, your round 1 argument, according to my words-with-spaces counter sums your argument at 998 words+spaces. I suggest your future debates allow a count in the range of 5,000 to 10,000. If you propose a difficult and/or controversial subject, maybe more. Doesn't mean you must use so many characters, but more it is prudent.
Your turn now.