If You Are a Partial Owner of a Company Then You Must Put Effort Into Managing it.
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 3 votes and with 11 points ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 3
- Time for argument
- Two days
- Max argument characters
- 1,000
- Voting period
- One week
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
No information
2) Less than 100% of employees of a company are managers.
Are we arguing owners or employees?
Who hires you to not do anything?
How are stockholders...employees?
How do you "not do anything for the company" while owning it?
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.
S&G Tie
Conduct: tie
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.
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.