Battling the pre-rebuttals of Pro
Abusive movement of goalposts
Let's directly address an abusive movement of goalposts that I totally disagree with:
I would like to point out that people who have invested large amounts of money through spending money to buy products are more commonly mailed or told in advance of them making the decision. Another thing is that these decisions are often multiple-choice, so shareholders must have confirmation to bring up a new idea.
This can surely not be blamed on the consumer. If anything, this must be blamed on the company for not providing a good option. They were merely choosing one of several options, and what about the number of people who voted for it to change the tide?
Both of these (and what's said just before the first quote) strongly indicate that Pro knows exactly why his entire case is flawed and wrong and wants to move the goalposts so that the most potent attack Con can give is nullified. I totally disagree with it.
Absolutely nowhere in the debate's title or description is it even implied that the say of the consumers is going to an extremely limited minimalistic survey-filling format. It is entirely framed in a way that implies that the biggest consumers gain a say relative to the amount they put in.
In fact a major point against this amendment by Pro isn't just how abusively the goalposts are moved but that the consumer paying millions has the same say in the survey result as one who barely paid enough to qualify as a 'consumer who has a say'. Clearly, if the ethos is paying more in consumption leads to more say that is entirely unfeasible to stay true to if you are just offering questions to them where each has an equal say and most of the time is only answering in multiple-choice format.
I totally disregard this and encourage all voters to disallow it to be upheld because a huge amount of my attack on Pro's side requires us to interpret the resolution in that the consumer gain a genuine seat at the table and have a say in the company's direction, or else what the hell is the debate? You already can give your consumers a chance to answer surveys, this clearly was never about that practise. Pro is abusing and knows full well how wrong he is, that's why he tried to cut off the best way for Con to attack; consumer can ruin the company with their sway.
==
Annihilating Pro step 1: The sabotage
Saboteur corporations willing to spend millions in consuming the goods and/or services of their competitors will abuse this. The biggest inevitably can do this over and over to smaller competitor driving them into the ground with the say they have. Pro will stick to the abusive amendment that moves the goalposts to just survey-filling but that is not having a say in the company, that is being nothing more than an ordinary customer who gets asked a question after a purchase.
==
Annihilating Pro step 2: Risk-Free power purchasing
A major problem with this idea/policy is that the main principle of free market Capitalism is that if you risk more and it goes well, you get rewarded and if you risk more and it goes well you get punished severely (financially). So, if this kind of system enables people to not risk (as shareholders and stockholders do) and instead to completely risk-free invest in the company after it's already known it's succeeding and to get return on investment guaranteed as well (since you paid for the good or service they provide, not just the say) is cheating the entire basis of Capitalism.
You literally are getting more for your money than you're supposed to be getting as well, which adds a separate issue (step 3)...
==
Annihilating Pro step 3: Is the company's success down to its product quality?
Instead of people purchasing goods and services in order to get the best quality they feel they can afford, people will be purchasing with motives of having a say in the company. Ironically, this could just as easily favour small as big companies with medium-sized companies inevitably suffering.
Consumers will either want a big say in a small company or some say in a very big company that's going to keep dominating the market. This means companies that are middle-of-the-pack for their industry will constantly be eroded down if enough consumers adapt to this (and an average consumer will need to be really loyal to a company to pay enough to get a say in it, so it's not like a small amount lost, it's a lot that could have gone to the medium company, going elsewhere).
==
Annihilating Pro step 4: The well-meaning but ignorant consumer
^ These are two links exploring just how much it takes to know enough to be fully competent at business. The average consumer may know what product they like and think is worth their money but that doesn't mean they know the first thing about business nor even that they know about other consumers (they have no idea how normal or unusual of a consumer they are nor what subconscious elements of advertising and marketing in general, caught their attention).
Plus, aside from overall business knowledge the specific discipline/study of actuaries (risk managers/advisors) is separate and extremely essential for companies to make wise moves:
Consumers won't tend to know much about business/trade secrets, theories or concepts and furthermore won't generally be close to experts nor amateurs in actuarial science.
They will be influencing decisions in the company that they are ignorant of the knowledge required to properly give sound advice on.
“In a world growing increasingly banal and familiar, what seems enigmatic instantly draws attention. Never make it too clear what you are doing or about to do. Do not show all your cards. An air of mystery heightens your presence; it also creates anticipation -- everyone will be watching you to see what happens next. Use mystery to beguile, seduce, even frighten.”
― Robert Greene, The 48 Laws of Power
https://alexanderemmanual.medium.com/law-6-court-attention-at-all-costs-63132007d214
If you wanted a 2 round debate, why couldn't you just have asked me to change it before you accepted it?
(Check RM's questions for some context)
Weird.... I clicked on this debate and watched the countdown from 10 seconds.
2. The company decides the options, the consumers merely pick one.
The motion states that consumers should be allowed to vote for one or more option. Therefore, any arguments stating: "The consumers might put the company in financial/political trouble." are invalid and should be considered such by voters.
Assuming that the biggest consumers actually want to help with the company. There are consumers that just want to exploit the company to achieve their own deeds, and those should not.
Thanks for accepting! I'll have an argument in a few hours.