Criminal records should not be available to employers and landowners.
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 1 vote and with 7 points ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 4
- Time for argument
- Three days
- Max argument characters
- 30,000
- Voting period
- Two weeks
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
In this debate, Pro argues why not having criminal background checks available to land owners and businesses would help reduce crime's resurgence. Con must say about public access to such records or why privatizing such information would not help reduce crime.
First argument: Once an inmate has been released from the correctional facility having served his or her sentence. They are expected to live a crime-free lifestyle and contribute to our society. However, society offers little to no help to millions of Americans as they are often prevented from doing so, thanks to their criminal records barring them from many jobs. According to themarshallproject.org, over 70 million to 100 million in the USA have a criminal record. They also have found that over 72 percent of all post-release restrictions impact Job opportunities and point out that housing is even more difficult next to job searching. A Criminal Record is a Barrier to Jobs and Housing for Millions in the U.S. | The Marshall Project
By allowing free access to criminal records to the public for land owners and jobs to see, we leave millions of Americans who have criminal records without a means to escape their criminal pasts and thus leave them with no other option but to go back to prison which is why such records should not be made public.
Final argument: Every study and article I presented as Pro all root back to the same issue. The publication of one's past criminal records not only prevents job and housing opportunities from being denied to them despite already having paid for their crimes but also allows for the legal discrimination of millions that are sent back to prison, not out of personal choice, but because landowners and employees abuse their power and cruelly deny the services that help keep former criminals from breaking parole. Only the State should be able to review crimes committed against it and use that as a justification for denying benefits, not unrelated people who do not need such compromising and personal information.
"when you run background checks through a company in the business of compiling background information, you must comply with the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA). The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) enforces the FCRA. ""
""If you get background information (for example, a credit or criminal background report) from a company in the business of compiling background information, there are additional procedures the FCRA requires beforehand:""
"" In one survey, a total of 92% of responding employers stated that they subjected all or some of their job candidates to criminal background checks.49 Employers have reported that their use of criminal history information is related to ongoing efforts to combat theft and fraud,50 as well as heightened concerns about workplace violence51 and potential liability for negligent hiring.52 Employers also cite federal laws as well as state and local laws53 as reasons for using criminal background checks[This article is large. Please feel free to examine it or use their citations to discover more about employer demographics and responses. ].""
- Mitigate Fraud or Theft. Stealing money or merchandise are the two most typical forms of company theft. According to the National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB), a company’s employees are 15 times more likely to steal from them than some stranger off the street. Employees also make up 44% of theft losses at stores. Skimming (diverting business funds); fraudulent disbursements (billing schemes, inflated expense reports, check tampering); and embezzlement are just a few methods of theft and fraud that can be perpetrated by a dishonest employee. A thorough criminal background check will determine those applicants who have theft convictions, helping protect your business.
""In December 2019, the “Fair Chance to Compete for Jobs Act of 2019” became law as part of the National Defense Authorization Act. Effective December 2021, the law will prohibit most federal agencies and contractors from requesting information on a job applicant’s arrest and conviction record until after conditionally offering the job to the applicant.""
B.) "" Sometimes those laws directly prevent people from getting the licensing they need for a given job, like a firefighter or plumber. Other times, the laws work indirectly by banning certain employers — like nursing homes or drug rehabs — from hiring people convicted of particular offenses, known as “barrier crimes.”
""Many state and local laws offer guidelines as to what types of charges will disqualify applicants from becoming a firefighter.For example, Salt Lake City Fire Department notes that any felony conviction that requires you to register will disqualify you. Other felony and misdemeanor charges may also prevent you from working as a firefighter in the city including a DUI in the last two years, a domestic violence conviction and possession or use of hallucinogens, narcotics or cannabis without a prescription. The statutes of the State of North Carolina stipulate that both misdemeanors and felonies may make you ineligible to be a firefighter depending on the type of crime. Some disqualifying crimes under the law include counterfeiting, sex offenses, murder, assault, kidnapping, burglary, arson and fraud.""
""Tell employers about the benefits of hiring a worker with a criminal record. Two items to mention:
- The Work Opportunity Tax Credit, which gives tax discounts to employers who hire low-income ex-offenders. Print a brochure about this program to bring to interviews by clicking the WOTC Brochure link at the bottom of this page.
- The Federal Bonding Program, which is insurance for employers concerned about theft or dishonesty by an employee. Employers can call 1 (877) US2-JOBS to get more information."""
""The top misconception about background checks is that there is a single ultimate database out there that includes all of the criminal records ever filed in the United States. The truth is that criminal records are scattered across thousands of different databases from county courts to federal criminal databases. ""
List:::"" In one survey, a total of 92% of responding employers stated that they subjected all or some of their job candidates to criminal background checks.49 Employers have reported that their use of criminal history information is related to ongoing efforts to combat theft and fraud,50 as well as heightened concerns about workplace violence51 and potential liability for negligent hiring.52 Employers also cite federal laws as well as state and local laws53 as reasons for using criminal background checks[This article is large. Please feel free to examine it or use their citations to discover more about employer demographics and responses. ].""
""Each agency of the Federal Government, and every facility operated by the Federal Government (or operated under contract with the Federal Government), that hires (or contracts for hire) individuals involved with the provision to children under the age of 18 of child care services shall assure that all existing and newly-hired employees undergo a criminal history background check. All existing staff shall receive such checks not later than May 29, 1991. Except as provided in subsection (b)(3), no additional staff shall be hired without a check having been completed.""
"" Poudre School District said it thoroughly reviewed an arrest record for a misdemeanor child-abuse case in 2012 before hiring a paraprofessional bus attendant who now faces nearly 130 charges for assaults, child abuse and harassment alleged to have occurred during his employment with the district.""
They serve to prevent the ex con from facing temptation to repeat crimes they have already shown a history in doing. Some aspects like DUI or drug use show the history of behavior.
Statistics provided give us quantity and correlation, but no cause. I repeat, we do not see how many re-incarcerations do or do not have a job when they are re-incarcerated. Nor can we read into any individual's attempt at being hired. Pro's argument may be stronger if we can have a better visual aid to show us connections. Does this mean no one returns to jail for commiting a crime based on being jobless?
Here is a link that shows a list of employers hiring ex-cons.Linkedin provides a comprehensive article on how much help can be obtained by those with convictions. https://www.indeed.com/career-advice/finding-a-job/programs-for-felons-to-get-jobs Again, these sites and programs help us understand that there are ways to get good paying jobs despite having a criminal record. The main objective is to go for the jobs and careers you can get into.
Third/final argumentPro has not connected the dots to show how or why millions of people are denied an ability to work. Are they denied a job? Would the job put them in the exact same position they were in to commit a crime?Sometimes yes. That is ok. The person who committed fraud by stealing customer identification should not go back into the same job to be tempted by the same crime.
However, a company may not hire a candidate if they refuse because of two reasons.A.) That company (i.e. day care, youth sports) is required by law to do a background check.B.) That company has policies in place to prevent incidences and establish positive environment.Although the job market can be difficult to navigate and compete in, there are many companies and agencies that hire people with criminal records.And here is a link that explains criminal background checks i we want to look deeper into it. There is also a list of govt. agencies that provide opportunity to those with criminal history.We should also know that there are advantages for those who hire people with criminal record.""Tell employers about the benefits of hiring a worker with a criminal record. Two items to mention:
- The Work Opportunity Tax Credit, which gives tax discounts to employers who hire low-income ex-offenders. Print a brochure about this program to bring to interviews by clicking the WOTC Brochure link at the bottom of this page.
- The Federal Bonding Program, which is insurance for employers concerned about theft or dishonesty by an employee. Employers can call 1 (877) US2-JOBS to get more information."""
If we look further we can use online help to find list of employers willing to hire those with criminal history.
MacroMoving from individual to the company and economy, employee environment can shape trust. Trust from the employer, employee, customer and community.Resolving a lawsuit or even fraud can spiral into a nightmare. The over all cost can mean employee cuts, price increases, or even customer lost. A local story involves a woman stole money from a commercial complex that ended in several business closing. That commercial complex is now shut down for several years.When we look at the monetary loss a company may face, we should recognize that loss could mean employees loose their jobs. The employeer could loose their business. A govt. entity may have to reallocate funds from other resources to pay for a lawsuit. We are not just talking about figures vs people.Lets be real. We are looking at an individual's chance to get a job vs the safety and well being of a group.Here is an example from Colarado.
- Law suits can happen for any reason: While I do not deny that Con has a point. Companys face lawsuits on a regular basis for numerous reasons. hiring an ex-con and then having to be closed down employees loosing their Jobs etc. Happen all the time regardless if its by an employee and or other situations.
- Jobs are not guaranteed: While it is terrible to loose a job because the company you work for got sued, losing your Job can happen at anytime for any reason. People will ultimately move on and get employed else where. The possibility of losing a Job to a company that can go under for any reason is not a justified reason for denying an ex-con a job.
"" Poudre School District said it thoroughly reviewed an arrest record for a misdemeanor child-abuse case in 2012 before hiring a paraprofessional bus attendant who now faces nearly 130 charges for assaults, child abuse and harassment alleged to have occurred during his employment with the district.""If we made all criminal background checks or are irresponsible with the requirements for them, then we will miss an opportunity to help two groups. In this example we missed the chance help perpetrator by putting them in a place they can commit the same exact crime as before. In this case it was child abuse, which means we could have prevented their victimization. The school district will now need to pay restitution taking money away from the schools and other children's education.
Although not every case will demonstrate the same crime, we can see the same impact on the community. Resources that could go there now go to restitution. As said before, this could make some companies fail. An economic blow.
ConclusionWith these examinations we can see that the movement from jail to work is complex and taking away all criminal background checks would take away an important tool to help ex-cons and navigate risk.
Don’t underestimate the need to know a prospective tenant’s criminal history, too. Like the credit report, their criminal background could give an indication of whether they might commit a crime again in the future. The information helps protect your investment, the neighborhood, and you.
The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) clearly spells out that a landlord should not deny an applicant based solely on an arrest without conviction:“A housing provider who denies housing to persons on the basis of arrests not resulting in a conviction cannot prove that the exclusion actually assists in protecting the resident safety and/or property.”This 10 page HUD document boils down to two paragraphs in the conclusion.“Policies that exclude persons based on criminal history must be tailored to serve the housing provider’s substantial, legitimate, nondiscriminatory interest and take into consideration such factors as the type of the crime and the length of the time since conviction. Where a policy or practice excludes individuals with only certain types of convictions, a housing provider will still bear the burden of proving that any discriminatory effect caused by such policy or practice is justified. Such a determination must be made on a case-by-case basis.”Basically, if you’re going to use a criminal record in your tenant screening process, you must make a viable case for why that crime jeopardizes the residents’ safety and/or property.
How long ago the crime occurred. Something that happened decades ago might not mean that the applicant isn’t the best tenant for you.The severity of the crime. Did they commit a misdemeanor when they were younger, or was it a more serious offense?The frequency of the crime. Are there multiple arrests? Have they committed the same offense more than once?Legal restrictions on the individual. Some sex offenders must stay a certain distance away from places like schools and parks. Be sure to consider if an applicant is under any restrictions that may prevent them from living in your rental property. If you are unsure about the results of any criminal background check, you should consult a local lawyer.
They have pointed out that Not all laws that restrict Jobs are bad. I agree...
Some job restrictions make sense when they concern felonies. Any job that requires a gun should not be allowed to apply of course. What does not make sense is denying people just for having Criminal records.
(1) Has been convicted in any court of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding 1 year;
An individuals experience is irrelevant to the millions of others who suffer from a recuring issue such as job restrictions. Con has provide no stats to counter this point.
Con argues that I have not established a cause. but Acknowledges that Job restrictions exist. Furthermore, while Con tries to argue that we cannot know an Indvidual's attempts to be hired. The website and stats I previously gave establishes that these Job restrictions affect Millions of people. An individuals experience is irrelevant to the millions of others who suffer from a recuring issue such as job restrictions. Con has provide no stats to counter this point
According to themarshallproject.org, over 70 million to 100 million in the USA have a criminal record
Con needs to prove that a person convicted of a crime will for a fact be tempted to commit the same crime as before just because a job may have the opportunity to do
According to the World population review, up to 44 percent of criminals re-offend before the first year out of prison. Recidivism Rates by State [Updated May 2023] (worldpopulationreview.com)
"The manner in which Chapter Four of the Guidelines Manual assigns
criminal history points is designed to reflect that the seriousness of single
prior convictions is predictive of recidivism. An offender’s past convictions
are assigned one, two, or three points based on the nature of the offense and
sentence. These point assignments reflect the seriousness of the offender’s
past conviction. Offenders with only one-point sentences have significantly
lower rearrest rates (53.4%) than offenders with a two-point but no three-point
sentence (71.3%), or offenders with a three-point sentence (70.5%).
...is that Land owners and business owners actively discriminate people with criminal records and therefore criminal records should not be public Knowlege since it hurts people from trying to reform into society.
By allowing free access to criminal records to the public for land owners and jobs to see, we leave millions of Americans who have criminal records without a means to escape their criminal pasts
my stats show that 44% reoffend in less then a year) and that (somehow) this is for the benefit of everyone including the ex-cons. They have completely misunderstood and misrepresented my argument
Con admits this is not a one size fits all incident and thus cannot apply a collective effect in an isolated innocent.
Although not every case will demonstrate the same crime...
we can see the same impact on the community.
This sounds like Pro concedes on debate topic. Criminal background checks have been included with "job restrictions" through out this debate - may Pro please clarify? How are employers to know that a person is not allowed to have a gun because they have a felony on record other than a background check?
Pro makes several comments that I do not argue against statistics provided. My response to this is simple; I don't have to.
Pro has given us nice figures. I admit that. 1,700,000 incarcerations, all affected by criminal background checks because they have criminal history. That is yet to be established as a bad thing.
Just because x number of people are affected by a law or policy does not mean they are automatically discriminated against.
As said above, we make these decisions based on risk vs. reward. No one wants a 50/50 chance to loose millions vs paying a guy $15/hr. Even at 44% chance to repeat offending, that risk can be far greater than some want to gamble on, let alone invest in. Whether or not the same crime is committed is irrelevant because an employee or tenant committing crime (especially during working hours or in a rental property) is a loss. Sometimes this loss means we find someone new. Sometimes this loss means file for bankruptcy. Sometimes that loss means we loose our own home.
If we consider this study as basis for rehiring someone with criminal record. We will be faced with a 70 % chance they might get rearrested. Whether or not that person is guilty or not, sentenced or not, we will still get a bad image to repair as the employer. We still receive a loss, and that loss could mean (as a business) we will have to close our doors.As said before, federal and most states still allow criminal background checks even with their restrictions because sometimes the risk is far greater than the reward.Following govt. regulation on how to perform a background check requires us to only consider crimes and information related to our industry or job type.The individuals who would qualify under u.s. regulations for denial are categorized in higher risk group within the above study. Lower risk groups would not be included as possible options for denial unless the crimes committed were directly related to the job. I.e. a person known to commit fraud probably would not be hired at a bank.
How does a person have no means to escape their criminal past if I just gave several examples on how they can?Consider the two individuals used as examples by marshal project. Why were they denied work? They were denied work because laws existed that prohibited their work in a specific field, not because an employer just saw that their criminal history.For any who do not recall, the stories shared by marshal project was that of:A) a man who got fired from being a counselor because a law prohibited it based on his history as an addictB) a person unable to work in cosmetology because they had committed a felon.Change the laws and the two would be able to work where they wanted to because employers would have no merit to fire (A) or prevent hiring (B). Why is this so? Federal/state laws prevent such actions.Pro has to demonstrate why being barred from specific jobs (but not all jobs) is bad and discriminatory. We have yet to see why and any real evidence for it.
1. Me agreeing that restricting a job based on the fact the applicant has a felony record on that specific job. Is not a concession. That is me agreeing that it "made sense" nothing more
Only the State should be able to review crimes committed against it and use that as a justification for denying benefits, not unrelated people who do not need such compromising and personal information.
2. So is it that You don't have to counter any of my information or I have not provided any relative information?
3. So millions of people not being able to gain meaningful Jobs is not established as a bad thing?
Con is willfully denying the problems of Ex-cons by claiming a lack of understanding of how denying millions of people a job could be harmful.
Just because x number of people are affected by a law or policy does not mean they are automatically discriminated against.
8. Con point out that ex-cons have 70% chance of getting rearrested but then claim that the dental would happen if the Job was related to the crime they were convicted off. This is contradicted by the fact that they also state that it does not matter if the ex-con was guilty or not. Simply being hired could give a company a bad image
I have presented the statistical facts. I have demonstrated the harmful and discriminatory nature that allowing criminal backgrounds to be public knowledge and how that had caused most ex-cons to fail to adjust to our society.
Stats about 44% reoffending only shows that people reoffend. Does it show us that this 44% did not have a job or was denied a job? no.
Denying ones application for any reason other then the character and work ethic is always a bad thing for that is the very definition of discrimination
Con was incredibly thorough in each and every response, thereby providing far more convincing arguments.
Con provided countless reliable sources compared to the very few that Pro provided in R1.
Con provided arguments that were far more legible (i.e., grammar, context, syntax, consistency, clarity, etc.) than Pro did.
Con provided better conduct, as Pro displayed/demonstrated arrogance more than once throughout the debate.
R1:
Pro claims any decision based on a background check can ONLY be discrimination, not accounting for electability based on many other facts IN ADDITION to the background check.
Claims society doesn't help the convicted, ignores the fact that society doesn't help anyone, directly, they help all indirectly via programs set up to provide assistance. It's up to parolees and the convicted who completed their sentence fully to utilize those programs, it's not society's responsibility to just seek them out and hand everything to them on a silver platter.
Pro either ignores or is ignorant of the fact that those charged with certain crimes can have their records expunged, if they qualify.
Pro demonstrates a level of ignorance when it comes to recidivism rates of formerly incarcerated individuals, just citing 1 or 2 sources and letting them do all the explanation without giving any context to said sources as they directly relate to their argument(s) given.
Pro ignores the risk to benefit ratio when it comes to housing and/or employment liabilities.
Con provided quotes from his sources thereby giving context to said sources as they relate to their argument. Explained candidate consent. Noted laws on negligent hiring and the liability assumed if poor hiring practices are used. Provided sources and a recent example to illustrate their point(s).
R2:
Pro provided very little in rebuttal, more like an afterthought than anything else. No cited sources. Just subjective opinion.
Demonstrated/displayed arrogance asserting Con needs to revise his argument.
Pro claimed Con didn't say anything about his argument of employer discrimination, thereby shifting the BoP. Same for Pro's argument of his claimed harm to the convicted on getting housing, an argument Pro needs to prove, not Con. Again, shifting the BoP.
Pro arrogant claims background checks "directly" affect the convicted without acknowledging a multitude of other factors that go into the overall decision making process.
Con acknowledges there are many issues at play in the decision making process, Pro does not.
Notes the benefit vs cost ration of liability when making poor decisions without all the facts made available to them (ie, background checks being an important tool to that end).
Provides numerous citations to substantiate their position, whereas Pro hasn't provided any this round (or subsequent rounds for that matter).
R3:
Pro again gives NO citations to substantiate their subjective retort.
Asserts Con is "speculating" with the DUII example, but he himself speculated himself in R1.
Claims Con must prove convicted would recidivate on the job or in housing, again, shifting the BoP.
Pro states he did not argue whether employment was possible or not, but rather that landlords and business owners "actively discriminate" yet has not proven this beyond a reasonable doubt or even by a preponderance of any measure of evidence (ie, cited sources which Pro seriously lacked).
Con discusses risk to benefit ratio, proved numerous sources, proves Pro agreed to job restrictions, which include background checks, obviously.
Con demonstrated that Pro basically conceded to the debate topic with their own statements used against him.
R4:
Pro claims Con misunderstands debate topic (arrogance, yet again). Claims Con hasn't been honest (ad hominem).
Claims to have given "statistical evidence" proving his position and contradicts Con's position.
Con recounts point, intent and purpose of the debate topic. Gives yet another thorough and well cited rebuttal. Proves Pro is the one who misunderstood their own debate topic.
Got to forums section. Then select a categroy you think this topic fits.
Then look for and click on plus sign. Should be on right side of webpage.
Sounds good. But I don't know how to do that. Thanks for participating. It was fun.
Hi,
Although we dont see eye to eye much, thank you for your input. I didnt see your comment to me until 3 rd round. I lost count, and thought I had 5 to do too . Lol.
Anyways. Have nice day.
Hey, your debate topic should be added into the forums. May have some good input and discussion there.
Thanks for debate.
Not a troll, and get a dictionary before you throw this term around. Not even arguing. You might think you are, but you’re not.
You don't know what respect is. But it's pointless arguing with you. You only want to run your mouth and be a troll. IM done listening to it.
Respect is earned, not given; and you certainly have not earned it.
I did it to test orogami, as he is has proven himself a hypocrite on more than one occasion. He has also proven himself a liar too (claiming he can’t remove votes after the voting period has ended when he can).
Don’t you worry little one, I’ll be voting…soon.
You do realize that by your own admission. You purposefully made an unfair vote that was outside the criteria. I fail to see the validity in getting upset for being called out on actions you have been WARNED ahead of time not to do. Frankly, it says a lot about your character. To be warned that toxic behavior will not be tolerated, and yet you still do it anyway to be a dick. Completely unrespectable.
As expected. You’re like a dog running to the dog whistle. Predictable.
I tested you in this and you didn’t disappoint. I have plenty of time now to meet your criteria. If met and you still remove my vote, once again you’ll prove your biased hypocrisy.
thank you sir.
@Americandebater24
@TWS1405_2
@hey-yo
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: TWS1405_2 // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 7 points to Con (Arguments, Sources, Legibility, Conduct)
>Reason for Decision:
Con provided better, far more well-grounded convincing arguments.
Con provided significantly more reliable sources.
Con provided significantly better legibility.
Con provided observably significantly better conduct.
Pro is clearly pro-criminal, Con is pro employee and employer safety, not to mention any position where an employee would come into contact with the public, thereby keeping the public safe.
>Reason for Mod Action:
All 4 of TWS's votes are manifestly insufficient.="To cast a sufficient vote, for each category awarded, a voter must explicitly perform the following tasks:"
" (1) Provide specific references to each side’s utilization within the said category."
" (2) Weigh the impacts against each other, including if any precluded others."
" (3) Explain the decision within the greater context of the debate."
"https://info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy#casting-votes"
Furthermore, this VOTER demonstrates clear bias by basing votes on perceived traits of the debater rather than arguments in the debate (i.e. "Pro is clearly pro-criminal, Con is pro-employee." Since many debaters agree to support arguments that do not reflect their personal beliefs, any and all VOTES based on perceived beliefs are inherently disqualified. Likewise, any VOTE that includes irrelevent description of one or more debaters traits is disqualified.
**************************************************
I think the vote TWS1405_2 is unfair because he claims I am "pro-criminal." And does not give any reasons for his vote. For example. He claims that Con did better conduct. But Con nor I disrespected each other in the debate. We both acted professionally. Overall I think it's clear that the vote was made with a clear bias; as I said, he would do rather than an honest vote based on the arguments.
Thank you. I will follow your good advice.
I advise focusing your efforts on your real opponent, rather than getting bogged down in the comment section.
If anyone votes for arguments in the comment section (but not inside the debate proper), the vote is highly eligible for deletion if reported. If such a thing happens, please report the vote and also make a comment tagging moderators concisely explaining why you believe you falls short.
Yeah, you did lie, and I showed the receipts for it.
Besides, anyone can read the dialogue from #1 to present and see you're a liar.
Not only that, your reading comprehension sucks!
Now ignore the comments and get back to debating hey-ho.
Sir, you only said that AFTER I told you, I would tell the Mods about your conduct. Before that, every previous request to vote based on criteria and not personal opinion was ignored. So no, I did not lie. You also claimed I would lose long before you said you could vote as long as it was in the criteria. Cleary, your attempts at calling me a liar have failed.
"However, I did ask him to make sure his vote was based on the criteria and not his personal opinions. He's not only given no assurances that he would..."
~ LIAR LIAR!
From #12: "And I can and will vote. So long as I meet all the required criteria for voting and do so in a logical manner..."
"he has all but assured me "you will lose,"
Quoting out of context is a fallacy:
From #9 you said, "Sir, opinions made from experiences are never objective." and I replied to this that yes, you will LOSE this debate; especially if you believe that bologna. On that note, I am 100% factually accurate.
The rest of your comment was nothing short of a strawman-ad hominem argument. Pure emotive bunk!
"I gave you two analogies: calling out answers in a trivia contest or a spelling bee."
False equivalency fallacies to what is transpiring here. Dismissed.
"...it is adding pressure to both sides who are [[[[[[[supposed to be ignoring comments]]]]]]]]] ..."
AND THERE IT IS!!!!!!! Truth is a bitch, ain't it!!!
Like I said, had he just ignored me or merely said thanks, we wouldn't be here. Try putting the blame where it belongs!!
Sir, you see why I am concerned? I have never once said that TWS1405_2 could not vote. However, I did ask him to make sure his vote was based on the criteria and not his personal opinions. He's not only given no assurances that he would, he has all but assured me "you will lose," Which is biased and not fair to Con or Me. He also made it clear that he is against me not because I presented a bad argument but because he thinks his past experiences make him more knowledgeable on the subject, which is not what he, as a voter, is supposed to vote based on.
It is not that he has to vote for me necessarily. It is simply that I do not think he is being fair or even evaluating my argument, as he called them "weak" with no supporting evidence before proceeding to insult me for no reason. I only ask for a fair vote based on the arguments and evidence presented.
Well, it is the first time I've ever run into him. I gave you two analogies: calling out answers in a trivia contest or a spelling bee. Think about hey-yo- maybe he wants to make an argument but you've already made the argument in the comments sections and now he looks like he's taking coaching from you. It is tempting to read an argument and then come back with your own argument but within the comments of the debate it is adding pressure to both sides who are supposed to be ignoring comments but are receiving automatic updates. If you really plan to vote, you are also advertising your prejudices before the debate is done and undermining your responsibility to be an objective critic. I see lots of cases where somebody is sparked by arguments in a debate and got to the forums with thier own take which seems perfectly acceptable.
After the Nuggets won in Miami last night, the Nugget's coach put a tight lid on any kind of celebrating he said, "Don't watch an TV, don't read any news pay zero attention to anybody's opinion, you haven't done anything until you've won the championship and you haven't won the championship until you've won four games." It is little like that in any contest: the last thing a contender needs during the contest is commentary from the sidelines: it just makes them question their own choices and raises questions about whose arguments really won the day. Unlike the Nuggets, these debaters are getting updates from commentary that they can't turn off and can't really ignore in case it is important information. Good form is to withhold actual critique or argument while the contest is underway.
His registration shows he has been here since 2022. That's hardly "new," though he/she definitely "acts" 'new.'
FFS, oromagi...what is wrong with constructive criticism to both sides to give them a helping hand on what to do to make their arguments more convincing? How is that being a POS?
I get you do not like me, and I definitely do not care for you in the slightest. But show an ounce of integrity and be more professional in exercising your duties here. You've already proven to be a hypocrite, don't prove yourself to be a complete and total tyrant asshole too.
Americandebater is new and may not yet have figured out that the first rule of fight club is always ignore TWS. I'm just saying you could choose to be less of a POS for once and cut the new guy some slack.
My first two comments were nothing short of constructive criticism.
Clearly Americandebater24 couldn't handle it and got triggered! He reaped what he sowed with his conduct and attitude going forward in the comments. I do not take it kindly when someone personally attacks me by any means or measure for no reason.
Ever stop and think had Americandebater24 just either stayed quiet and ignored me, or he could have simply said, "thank you for the criticism" and went away. We wouldn't be here. But we are here because of HIS conduct and attitude, not mine.
For every action there will be an equal or greater reaction.
Notice hey-ho hasn't said anything? Hmmm...let that sink in.
TWS- Your conduct here is obviously shitty and unsportsmanlike. Just as it would suck if somebody was calling out answers at a trivia contest or calling out spellings at a spelling bee, it takes a pretty anti-social person to be blasting counterarguments in the comments sections while two debaters are contesting the issue. I don't consider this behavior a code of conduct violation necessarily but you are definitely fucking up some of your fellow debaters' fun for no good reason and objectively anti-debate. I would strongly encourage you to reconsider your behavior here and hold back, at least until after arguments are complete.
“I never disputed your ability to vote. However, there are rules against voting outside of the criteria.“
No shit sherlock. What part of what I said about meeting the criteria of the voting did you fail to comprehend!?!
You’re new here. Don’t lecture me n what the voting criteria is or isn’t.
Run along now, you have more arguments to make.
I try to be as quick and efficient as possible. Sometimes to my own detriment, lol.
I never disputed your ability to vote. However, there are rules against voting outside of the criteria. You have not addressed any of the points I made besides baselessly calling them weak and made it clear through your own hostile demeanor that your vote will not be in a logical manner. Still, rather a biased one, and have repeatedly made it abundant that you lack the maturity to have civilized conduct. In short sit, you are a living example of a lack of integrity. To allow you to vote when you display a clear lack of understanding of the rules of professional debating would defeat the very purpose of professional debating. You are meant to vote not on personal bias, hatred, or because you don't like someone.
You vote based on who presents a better argument, legibility, sources, and conduct. I have asked you repeatedly to conduct your vote in the manner prescribed, and you have not only refused to do so but made it clear that you intend to vote against me out of spite, which is unfair to Con and me. You can vote; however, the Mods are now aware of your intentions, and should you cast a vote and the reason for it is not thorough and based purely on the arguments presented, I will report it again, and the Mods will intervene. It is not hard to act as an Adult. All this anger is one-sided, and you are the source of the issue, sir; please stop being toxic and actually let the debate be fair and fun. Thank you.
Bwaahaaahaahaaahaaa!!!
And just like the proverbial little child, he runs and tattle tales to mommy and daddy.
You’re definitely not going to succeed at DART with that disposition.
And I can and will vote. So long as I meet all the required criteria for voting and do so in a logical manner, you can’t stop me and if the mods have an ounce of integrity, neither will they.
Thank you so much for the disrespectful comment that has been reported. I have also gone ahead and let a Moderator know about this discussion, your conduct, and the confirmation of your bias should you attempt to vote. Good day.
“ Sir, opinions made from experiences are never objective.”
BWAAAHAAHAAHAAAHAAA!!!
Guess all those books, research papers, investigative journalism, and any and all other levels of investigations citing sources based on the author’s “experiences” aren’t “objective” (I.e., based on fact based data).
Fucking idiot.
You WILL lose this debate.
Sir, opinions made from experiences are never objective. Making claims with no evidence is called hearsay. Whether you have a degree in criminology or have worked in the justice system has no relevance. As a voter, your job is to vote solely on the criteria given, which is not meant to be based on opinion, experience, or past work history. Only better arguments, Legibility, sources, and conduct. Are you able to do so, sir? Because this discussion has so far revealed, you to be, in fact, immature, biased, and above all disrespectful. I am very tempted to notify moderators of your conduct and warn them of your unfair biases. But I want to be fair, so are you willing to act right, or will you be biased and disrespectful?
"You are free to think that my rebuttals are weak, but without a proper explanation, that's a biased opinion..."
My objective (not subjective) opinion was explained given my experience. It is not biased since I also gave the opposing side constructive criticism/advice just the same.
And I do not need you to parrot the garbage you already spouted off as the basis of your so-called argument.
You're an amateur debater, obviously young and inexperienced.
I have a degree in cirminology and criminal justice, worked in law enforcement as both an investigator and in a civilian capacity. I've also worked in a DA's Office as well. I know a helluva lot more than you do where this subject matter is concerned.
No more helpful constructive criticism from me; you can just fall on your own sword then.
Good luck, you're going to need it!!!
You are free to think that my rebuttals are weak, but without a proper explanation, that's a biased opinion, especially when You make it clear it is coming from the perspective of someone who hires people. My main argument in this debate has been to prove that background checks that allow businesses and landowners to discriminate against those who try to find housing and employment should not be permitted.
I have presented strong arguments showing that over 70% of post-bail jobs are negatively impacted. Additionally, I showed that the denial of proper employment and housing, which happens to millions of Americans with criminals, results in over 44% not lasting a year before reoffending. If you have read my submitted evidence and still say more is needed to convince you. Then you have no intention of considering my arguments in any serious capacity.
Secondly, You claim "on has demonstrated through the EEOC and the various jurisdictions of law that outlines that the risk does outweigh the benefit." Yet Con's sources only demonstrate that should a company hire the wrong person; The company can face litigation. It does nothing in terms of addressing the points that I have made. Points that you seem to ignore as well, I might add. As far as risks outweighing The benefits is concerned, the fact that you will take the cons' side when all they have shown in terms of risk is civil lawsuits but completely ignore my risks which include the resurgence of crime and the inability of ex-cons to survive past a year before committing crimes again. Only serve to prove that you are not being fair in this debate when voting.
This is especially true when you consider the fact Con so far has not addressed the landowner portion of my arguments and only partially when it comes to employment. Even then, it is hardly a rebuttal as they address none of the stats that prove my points and instead say that since people have to consent to a background check, lawsuits can occur if the wrong person is hired. That, if anything, makes Con's argument weak and rebuttals non-existent. I am not saying you should not vote for Con. But what I am saying is to vote not based on personal opinion like you have clearly demonstrated up to this point; vote best on the arguments themselves. If I am pulling sources and staying consistent and my opponent has not rebuttable or even addressed the points I made. Then they have clearly not made the better argument. Be fair, not biased, is all I ask.
You need to focus more on what you already put forth. More specifically, address the matter of the reliability of criminal background checks, which are the worst to make decisions off of and which are the best to make decisions off of. There is a difference between the various levels that some people pay for, not all are reliable whereas others are incredibly reliable. This speaks to the due diligence of the potential employer doing their research.
First and foremost, you haven't convinced me to vote for you. Your rebuttals are weak, to be honest.
Second, in order for you to have any leverage in this debate you must tip the scale in favor of the convicted by demonstrating that the benefit of their hiring outweighs the risk. So far you failed to do that whereas Con has demonstrated through the EEOC and the various jurisdictions of law that outlines that the risk does outweighs the benefit.
Lastly, having worked for a County Sheriff as their first civilian hire to perform background investigations on all new applicants for deputy sheriff (and subsequently every county office due to word of mouth that I was just that good at my job, other agencies asked the Sheriff to use my talents for their candidates), you have a huge hurdle to convince me. I will be watching this debate, and I will be voting.
I did not expect such a quick turn around. Lol
No worries. That happens.
Sorry, some of my sources are reused unintentionally, there was a mistake when I was doing the editing
Are they available?