Instigator / Pro
9
1485
rating
91
debates
46.15%
won
Topic
#2045

MICRO DEBATE: Herbalife is a pyramid scheme

Status
Finished

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

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
3
3
Better sources
2
4
Better legibility
2
2
Better conduct
2
2

After 2 votes and with 2 points ahead, the winner is...

RationalMadman
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
3
Time for argument
One week
Max argument characters
2,500
Voting period
One month
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
11
1687
rating
555
debates
68.11%
won
Description

Only 3 Rounds.

This is a micro-debate 2,500 characters. Three days per argument
4 sources per round.
MWD for definitions.
One week to argue (due to my busy workload)

For those who don't know what Herbalife is, it's an MLM "health" company https://www.herbalife.com/

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

PRO's own definition says the scheme has to profit mainly from subsequent participants, here is where CON argues, if the distributers can earn from sale of products there is no need to rely on recruitment. CON argues it better when he says there are 6 different career options, point to CON. Since PRO has instigated the debate he should have prooved that other sources of income, such as direct sales are negligible when compared to back payment from the company, which he does not, so PRO fails to make his case.
Sources: PRO loses his arguments mostly because of his sources the income disclosure statement used by PRO specifically states that even if the income received as payement from the company is 0. The distributor can make money from sale of products, which in essence is what a distributor should receive money for. Other business also have the same working, you pay a fixed price for distributorship which is in thousands of dollars and recieve cut based on the sale of products. How is this model any different, I could see no difference. It further made no sense to me how by paying only 100 dollars PRO is expecting anyone to make an yearly income. PRO's sources contradicted his stance of a pyramid scheme.

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

This is... a bit frustrating. A lot of the debate just isn't all that relevant because both sides largely concede that they meet their definitions. Pro does spend some time challenging whether Herbalife meets the more specific definition forwarded by Con, but I can really only see it covering some of the bases, which means it is at best partly meeting the definition. I might have been willing to buy that partially meeting the definition is sufficient to at least call into question whether it is a pyramid scheme, but I don't really see that argument from Pro, so while I have some reason to believe that it meets part of the definition, I'm not really sure what that means.

What that leaves me with is the question of whose definition of a pyramid scheme is more accurate; so, basically, Merriam-Webster vs. Investopedia. And that's where it becomes tricky. Neither side provides a particularly good reason to dismiss the other. Con argues that his definition is more specific and distinct from a con. I agree with both statements, but each is only a possible reason to accept his definition. I need to see why the distinction from a con is necessary, or why specificity is necessary. To that end, if I had a clear example of a company that would meet Pro's definition and most certainly is not a pyramid scheme, then that likely would have swayed me. Pro's argument for his definition is pretty much solely based on the bounds of the debate laid out in the out in the description, where it does say that MWD is the source for definitions. Pro does later mention criteria based on that definition, but they don't really bolster the definition he gives.

That doesn't leave me with a lot to work into a decision. Con does give me more reason to favor his definition, but given that it was laid out in the description, I'm buying that MWD is the source for definitions unless I'm given a solid reason to disfavor it. That leaves me leaning Pro on the definition, and as long as I am, that means I'm also buying that Con had to challenge Pro's arguments based on that definition. I can see some of Con's points that kind of address it, but none of them do enough to ensure that Pro didn't meet his burdens. Hence, I vote Pro.