EDEB8 - Ultimate Online Debating
About Us   Debate    Judge   Forum

That labor unions should be banned

3 points
5 points
9spaceking9spaceking (PRO)
1. Labor unions are ineffective.
- http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2011/02/labour_unions_0

2. Labor unions can be corrupt, and demolish the economy.
- http://www.huffingtonpost.com/the-relentless-conservative/how-_b_913311.html

3. Labor unions are bad for business, as explained by http://www.huffingtonpost.com/the-relentless-conservative/how-_b_913311.html, unions are found to be in a study (see: http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2009/05/what-unions-do-how-labor-unions-affect-jobs-and-the-economy), functioning as labor cartel, and with higher wages, they " bring less investment, fewer jobs, higher prices, and smaller 401(k) plans for everyone else." This shows how bad labor unions are. In addition the top-skilled people will be excluded because labor unions try to have equality, but end up putting a cap on the wage, so the skilled workers won't work any more, as shown to be true from http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2009/05/what-unions-do-how-labor-unions-affect-jobs-and-the-economy#_ftn9.

4. Labor unions reduce jobs. As shown in the below picture while labor unions slowly but surely has failed over the years. In contrast the non-union population is doing quite well and overall increasing (12.5 to 13.3 millions). 
Manufacturing employment: union vs. non-union

Again, to stress this, when comparing the Private Construction Employment, the union largely fails to increase and stays static, while the non-union vastly increase, opening new jobs.
Private construction employment: union vs. non-union
To strengthen this further, unions are also found to have much less job growth than non-unions, as found in http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2009/05/what-unions-do-how-labor-unions-affect-jobs-and-the-economy#_ftn30. In fact, there is actually direct evidence that unions can cause loss of jobs, as shown in http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2009/05/what-unions-do-how-labor-unions-affect-jobs-and-the-economy#_ftn32.
In conclusion the labor unions simply do not work. Their wage-raise may be a lot, but they have a lot of loss of profit as well with the loss of profit and cutting return on investments. And as my sources suggest, the labor-union companies go quickly out of business and even go into concession to avoid bankruptcy. There is no point allowing labor unions. They are useless and should be banned.

Return To Top | Posted:
2014-09-02 11:27:00
| Speak Round
BlackflagBlackflag (CON)
Regretfully I must forfeit this round. 
Only posting so it does not end the debate. 
Sorry :(
Return To Top | Posted:
2014-09-05 09:57:22
| Speak Round
BlackflagBlackflag (CON)
Unfortunately I ran out of time again, damn it. Let's see what I can refute shortly. 
Counter Arguments will come next round.  

1/2. Ineffective and Corrupt
In formal debates, sources, citations, and data are only used as supporting evidence.
You must make arguments of your own, not simply paste a link and expect us to accept it.
Next round, please make some fresh arguments. Don't worry, you'll improve in time. 

I assert that there is no argument here, therefore, nothing to negate. 

3. Heritage Foundation
This is literally the most trash filled ultra-conservative group in America. Yes, those rednecks who support bombing half the world, and abolishing government for economic anarchy. I assert that all evidence founded by this extremely biased and politically motivated group be rejected. There data also comes from two scientists, who are members of HF. The judges should not accept this data. 

4.  Labor Unions Hurt The Economy
Since this conclusion was reached through a biased and politically motivated conservative think-tank, I assert that the end foundation is faulty and shouldn't be accepted by the judges.

5. Labor Unions Reduce Jobs 
The evidence provided comes from the heritage foundation, who actually has been found to lie or even purposefully falsify data to further the Koch brothers political motives. The premise should not be accepted. 

Return To Top | Posted:
2014-09-08 12:47:05
| Speak Round
BlackflagBlackflag (CON)

Argument One: The Constitution Grants Labor Unions

Since my opponment is keen on using examples of the United States, I will base my argument on that. The US constitution grants the abillity for people to freely assemble. The traditional argument was quite simple. 
[P1] If people can not assemble, then their voices are extinguished
[P2] If the people's voices are extinguished, then tyranny can develop
[C1] Banning assembly will result in tyranny from rulers

Argument Two: Banning Labor Unions would be ineffective 

As history has shown, assembly of people's can't be prevented. Even if it was banned. The traitors of France still assembled, even though they were told not too. The colonists holed up in Barlow's Tavern when the British marched to Concord, but there assembly was banned. As was the continental congress. The point is clear. Whether you ban labor unions or not, people will still assemble and organize to improve working conditions and standards. 

I contend that a ban would be useless, and result in a popularity fall with political leaders. I also contend that since labor unions are voluntary, they are harming no one. 

Argument Three: Times when labor Unions were used well + Counter Argument

Most labor unions throughout history have been created for legitimate purposes. Such as the old Industrial Alliance, that split from the more mainstream APA union. Throughout history, African Americans, Children, Minorities, and different religions have had their rights protected against discrimination and pay gaps. Labor Unions are not only a sign of fear to employers, but without them, conditions would be far worse.

You see, the only one who can protect workers without unions, is the government. Meaning if a employer breaks the law with his employee, the only way the employee can receive compensation is through the courts. But usually the employer doesn't have the money to compete with the lawyers of big corporations and fat cats, but if everybody pools money into unions, employees are guaranteed a safety net if they ever fall into legal trouble with their company. 

I do agree that labor unions have become corrupt, which is why my counter proposal is to simply ban legal protection of unions.
People still receive the benefits of voluntary unions, without having the government supporting corrupt political machines. 

Return To Top | Posted:
2014-09-11 12:39:37
| Speak Round
9spaceking9spaceking (PRO)
My arguments were based on how labor unions were shown to be ineffective in earning wages, sorry for not clarifying that earlier. 
"Whether you ban labor unions or not, people will still assemble and organize to improve working conditions and standards." Exactly, so even without labor unions people can still speak up. This counters your own tyranny argument, since banning labor unions won't stop people from standing up, showing how useless the argument about being assembled being prevented by the ban.

And even if labor unions' ban won't be that helpful, it can at least prevent the corruption and reduce the negative effects that I pointed out in my sources. In addition, the corruption of labor unions is worse than the corruption of politicians, no research from my opponent shows that politicians are capable in any way of demolishing the economy.

As for my sources from Heritage Foundation being terrible, here are a few more sources that show the same idea of the heritage foundation, only not from the HF.

In addition the labor unions don't grant that much more benefits than non-labors, in fact, the source below clarifies what I've been trying to say this debate: the cultures are separated by unions, drives companies out (CORRUPTION) and re-highlights my point about ignorance of highly skilled workers. 
My arguments still stand.

Return To Top | Posted:
2014-09-11 13:14:42
| Speak Round

View As PDF

Enjoyed this debate? Please share it!

You need to be logged in to be able to comment
Ohhhhh, I'll get my revenge!!
Posted 2014-09-13 23:42:08
work of satire maybe?
Posted 2014-09-13 00:21:45
Your source says "we may need labor unions after all"
Posted 2014-09-12 13:45:36
I'll post my argument in the next 7 hours
Posted 2014-09-10 07:07:57
wait...unlimited characters? Wow lol
Posted 2014-09-02 11:27:33
oh dang...banning labor unions...thats gonna be hard.
Posted 2014-09-01 11:26:07
The judging period on this debate is over

Previous Judgments

2014-09-13 15:34:30
adminJudge: admin    TOP JUDGE
Win awarded to: Blackflag
This debate was quite close but clear in the end.

Pro had the burden of proof and argued that labor union workers are worse off for jobs (especially in manufacturing/construction apparently) and hurt businesses who have to pay more. I wasn't inherently convinced by the idea that corrupt labor unions are bad not just because there was zero analysis, but because corrupt anything is bad - I felt like the idea that we just were supposed to accept labor unions are corrupt was against the spirit of the motion. I also felt like pro conceded the first point about effectiveness later in their R1 case when they said that labor unions raise wages a lot. The idea that businesses pay more also cut into that (lack of) analysis.

I felt like all that wasn't really argued as analytically as it should have been, and con was right to call pro up on this. However, I also felt that the evidence pro presented did warrant some constructive analysis as well. No counter-analysis at all was offered from the negative.

Con's case dominated the final round. Pro did present more sources to back up his claims but what I really needed was more analysis as to why his sources were right. It didn't really add anything to pro's narrative. Con had three points, all of them decent but presented quite superficially. It was nonetheless far more depth of analysis than anything pro had offered. At least two of these three arguments went completely unrebutted by pro. This didn't really do pro many favors.

I come back to this - pro had the burden of proof in this debate. He had clearly done a lot of research on the topic and had the better evidence on his side. But as con rightly pointed out, evidence alone does not win a debate. Overall it wasn't so much that con was convincing, but that pro wasn't convincing enough to meet their burden.

Don't forfeit. And don't assume that a forfeit means a loss either. I think con's forfeit post was a cunning workaround for the autoforfeit rule but it kind of broke the spirit of the rules, which was clearly to disallow forfeits. If con does this in other debates I judge I'll come down on him harder for this. I seriously considered giving pro the win just for that reason.

Both debaters were guilty of failing to go into any depth in your arguments, but particularly pro. This hurt the debate. It was mostly like "this is the argument, and here's the evidence". What you should do is also explain in detail why the argument is true. For example, unions are functioning as a labor cartel - What does this mean? What impact does it have, and why? What about unions today makes them effectively the same as a labor cartel? It's a great argument but just because you name it does not mean you make it.

Protip: paraphrase what your source says in terms of analysis in the debate. If you paraphrase in enough detail that will count as analysis.

Formatting was usually good in this debate but particularly for pro, try to format your URLs as links I can click on.

For con, I completely ignored your counter-proposal because you didn't defend it. When you run a counter-proposal you shift the onus of the burden of proof on to you. It's a super, super risky strategy. It 's probably not advisable in a debate like this. Nothing in this debate convinced me labor unions were corrupt.

Also for con, don't assume that just because a source is BIASED that the source is WRONG. Think of it like Fox - sure, it has a conservative streak, but that doesn't mean they're outright lying. Even the heritage foundation deserves a bit of analysis.

I liked the range of arguments used in this debate, though. It was also helpful that these arguments were well-labelled and, despite the lack of depth, easy to follow.
1 user rated this judgement as exceptional
2 users rated this judgement as constructive
0 comments on this judgement
2014-09-15 11:48:02
PinkieJudge: Pinkie    TOP JUDGE
Win awarded to: Blackflag
2014-09-15 12:04:17
cooldudebroJudge: cooldudebro
Win awarded to: 9spaceking
This debate was a little tough to judge, but it was an interesting one. 9spaceking started off strong, however, he started to falter in the coming round. Csareo's forfeit impacted my decision to a certain extent. Pro introduced many links supporting his arguments. However, Csareo didn't do as good as I expected. He barely introduced any links, insulted and called a link bias without giving a valid link to back him up. When push came to shove, Csareo put in A LOT less effort than 9spaceking. I believe Csareo debated this better. 9spaceking only posted his link and gave a simple sentense explaining why it was crucial and was like "don't worry! It's all in there." Horrible debate style there. Overall, Pro wins, despite sloppy debate styles from both debaters.
1 user rated this judgement as good
1 user rated this judgement as exceptional
0 comments on this judgement

Rules of the debate

  • Text debate
  • Individual debate
  • 2 rounds
  • No length restrictions
  • Reply speeches
  • No cross-examination
  • Community Judging Standard (notes)
  • Forfeiting rounds means forfeiting the debate
  • Images allowed
  • HTML formatting allowed
  • Unrated debate
  • Time to post: 3 days
  • Time to vote: 5 days
  • Time to prepare: 1 day
This is a random challenge. See the general rules for random challenges at http://www.edeb8.com/resources/General+rules+for+random+debates+%28version+2%29