Instigator / Con
Points: 21

If You Are a Partial Owner of a Company Then You Must Put Effort Into Managing it.

Finished

The voting period has ended

After 3 votes the winner is ...
Discipulus_Didicit
Debate details
Publication date
Last update
Category
Economics
Time for argument
Two days
Voting system
Open voting
Voting period
One week
Point system
Four points
Rating mode
Rated
Characters per argument
1,000
Contender / Pro
Points: 10
Description
No information
Round 1
Published:
The resolution of this debate is pretty straightforward. All I have to do as con is demonstrate examples of people that own part of a company but do not manage any part of that company. Due to character limitations I shall bring up only one such example each round to describe.

For the first round I would like to bring up the example of worker-owned companies. Worker-owned companies are companies where ownership is held only by employees of said company.

As we all know some employees are managers, but it is also true that some employees are not managers.

Therefore if it is true that:

1) Worker-owned companies are a thing that exist in real life.

2) Less than 100% of employees of a company are managers.

Then it logically follows that in the case of worker-owned companies less than 100% of the owners are managers. In other words less than 100% of that companies owners do anything to manage the company.

I turn the debate over to pro to allow them to try showing one of these two points as false.
Published:
2) Less than 100% of employees of a company are managers. 
Are we arguing owners or employees?

Suppose we are talking about workers/employees. Who hires you to not do anything? Because the employers would obviously hire no one when they have a tendency of doing nothing, and stockholders are not employees nor workers, thus no employee would do nothing to keep the company open.

Keen to ask: How are stockholders...employees?

Prove also this: How do you "not do anything for the company" while owning it? By stocks only and only stocks is needed?
Round 2
Published:
As pros round one argument just consists of a series of questions I will start by simply answering these questions.

Are we arguing owners or employees?

I made it very clear in round one that I was talking in that instance only about worker-owned companies. In the case of worker-owned companies the owners are the employees by definition.

Who hires you to not do anything?

Hiring someone to not do anything would be a very bad business move for the company so ideally this would not happen.

How are stockholders...employees?

Again (crazy that I have to say this 3 times) in round one I was talking specifically about worker-owned companies. In that case obviously all owners are employees of that company by definition. Some of them are managers, some of them are not.

How do you "not do anything for the company" while owning it?

The resolution is not about whether owners contribute to the company in some way, the resolution is specifically about whether all owners must manage their company.
Published:
This is a short one. 

1. No one employs you to do nothing, unless you are self-employed, which you are already your own manager consider you employed yourself.
2. No one employs you to only buy stocks. You can do them yourself but no stock-only-owner are employed because other than that, they are unoccupied 24 hours a day and 7 days a week.
3. You can earn money out of this company by owning stocks, but no one employs you to do so.
4. How do you not put effort into managing the company while doing something that is meaningful and on-topic? If you are talking about directly, then you win, but whatever you do will directly or indirectly contribute to managing the company.
Round 3
Published:
1. I already agreed with your statement "no company should hire someone to do nothing". I do not see the relevance of this statement to the resolution though. I have never advocated for a company to do that.

2. See above.

3. As I said before worker-owned companies are just one example of non-managing-owners. Most shareholders are indeed another example. This is another negation of the resolution. Thanks for agreeing.

4. The resolution is worded as "put effort into managing a company". The reason for this is that this debate is a direct response to your post here:


In this post you claim that a person employed by a company as (in your example) a paper-packer can't be a partial owner of a company because they would be too busy doing their packing job to do any managing. I am pointing out that they would not have to do any managing. They can just do packing and still be a partial owner.

I'll use last round for closing statements.
Published:
My closing points:
1. No matter how, as long as you are working, you are directly, and/or indirectly helping to manage the company. 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, and the two still contributes to the management financially and INDIRECTLY. Doing anything on-task, directly and indirectly, contributes to management. Even if you are sweeping the floor, you are still helping to manage the physical skeleton of the company building. Even if you are packing paper and just packing paper, you are still managing the paper in the company. Managing the papers and the floor are still managing parts of the company, which it goes without saying, belongs to the company. Volkswagen is the boss and Lamborghini is owned by Volkswagen. Regardless, When Lamborghini earns money and sells cars, they are still managing Volkswagen, of course, just indirectly.

I am out of words.
Added:
--> @User_2006
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?
Instigator
#14
Added:
--> @Discipulus_Didicit
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.
Contender
#13
Added:
--> @User_2006
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.
Instigator
#12
Added:
--> @Discipulus_Didicit
GG mate, you have won the debate.
Contender
#11
Added:
"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.
Instigator
#10
Added:
Accidentally setting the character limit so low was annoying but the challenge was fun. I shall have to try this again some time.
Instigator
#9
Added:
Oops, I thought this was a 4 round debate (that is the reason for the last sentence in the last round). Oh well lol.
Instigator
#8
Added:
Pretty sure fauxlaw just had a stroke...
Instigator
#7
Added:
--> @Discipulus_Didicit
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.
#6
Added:
--> @fauxlaw
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.
Instigator
#5
Added:
--> @User_2006
I notice on a subsequent debate proposal, you had already increased the count. 😀
#4
Added:
--> @fauxlaw
I know it right. 1000 is too compact to pack a piece of a link that supports me.
Contender
#3
Added:
--> @User_2006
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.
#2
Added:
--> @Discipulus_Didicit
Your turn now.
Contender
#1
#3
Criterion Con Tie Pro Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
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
#2
Criterion Con Tie Pro Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
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
#1
Criterion Con Tie Pro Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
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.