Instigator / Con
21
1596
rating
9
debates
88.89%
won
Topic
#1860

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

Status
Finished

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

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
9
0
Better sources
6
4
Better legibility
3
3
Better conduct
3
3

After 3 votes and with 11 points ahead, the winner is...

Discipulus_Didicit
Parameters
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
Contender / Pro
10
1470
rating
50
debates
40.0%
won
Description

No information

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

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

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