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
THBT: IF YOU are a PARTIAL OWNER of a COMPANY, then YOU MUST PUT EFFORT into MANAGING IT
CON1: CON offers a simple syllogism to conclude that less than 100% of OWNERS do any MGMT
PRO1: PRO tries to move the goalpost- from subject=OWNERS to subject=employees, from object=MGMT to object=any work
CON2: Shuts down both moves
The rest of the debate is repetition.
PRO never directly attacked CON's syllogism or offered some convincing counter ARG to CON
Argument: Con had the far better argument, which appeared to baffle Pro even though expressed and repeated by Con: Being part owner of a company in an employee-owned enterprise does not mean one has management duties, but some of the owners must do management. However, not all owners are managers,
Source: to Con, who had the only source. Ironically, it was Pro.
Con brought up the example of worker owned companies, insisting that not all workers are supervisors. Pro counters that they technically supervise themselves or the broom, which helps the greater supervisors... The other example was stock holders, with pro insisting their money helps the managers; which doesn't really bridge the gap into them being managers. With no other definitions in place, to me this falls in favor of common English; and generally not everyone is special and important (even if still useful). Indirect contributions to management, is not greater management itself.