Wal-Mart is good for America

"My rebuttal is that there is limited space in other stores and if you are an american who needs a job you have to go to Wal-Mart who then can afford to pay low wages because that person has no where else to go and he needs this job. So they actually have to seek employment here in Wal-Mart." I personally do not understand this argument. Wal-mart is not a government employment service and to say that Wal-Mart is the only place that people can go to for employment is simply incorrect. Unless you can prove that Wal-mart is the only place that an American can go to for employment with hard evidence, your point is null. "First can you explain to me what hoc is and my point was a statistic so even if something else had something to do with this Wal-Mart still had an impact considering I said when Wal-Mart stores were built so Wal-Mart had something to do with this." Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc is one of many logical fallacies commonly seen in debate. It beans "because of this, then this". While your argument shows that the poverty line rose at the same time Wal-mart came in, there can also be many other reasons. In order for your example to hold up in debate, you need solid proof that it is specifically the introduction of Wal-mart that caused the poverty line to rise. "Wal-Mart would not be within the jurisdiction of some other county because as I said, Wal-Mart was placed right outside Huntington so that it would not have to contribute to the tax-base of the city. What kind of neighbor is it being? Why doesn't it want to contribute to our economy? Because that would cost more money." Let me try to explain. Although it does not contribute to the tax base of Huntington, it would have to contribute to the tax base of SOMETHING, because the land it is built on is owned by some jurisdiction. Here's an example. If a Walmart opened up outside New York, I can complain that New York is not gaining from the taxes that Wal-mart pays. However, outside of New York is New Jersey, so instead of paying New York taxes, Wal-mart pays New Jersey taxes. Wal-mart does not shirk it's responsibilities, it just seeks to maximize profits. "Wal-Mart is doing good because of several reasons, First Wal-Mart has so much money by ripping off their employees, giving them bad benefits and selling goods at higher prices. If all other stores were doing this they would be good in the stock market and sales figures to." Capitalism works like this: If a corporation similar to Wal-mart was offering better pay for equal services, then the employees would flock to that corporation from wal-mart. Regardless, your argument begs the question that Wal-mart is the only place a person can work. I do not think it is possible for you to prove that point, so your argument is void. "As my opponent agreed with me saying that everyone wins except the people, who as you say, work at Wal-Mart. So my opponent does agree that working at Wal-Mart is a bad idea and you don't gain anything you only lose. Also I already stated above that Wal-Mart is the only place left to work at so the people have to go their which is why Wal-Mart can pay low. My opponent also said that the "money doesn't simply sit in a vault. The money is used to enhance the corporation in order to provide better service so that they can make even *more* money. " Again my opponent has agreed with me by saying that Wal-Mart keeps on making money because of their cheap labor and expensive goods, and yes maybe a small part goes to enhancing the store but the bigger parts are actually either stored in a vault or used to build another Wal-Mart which leads to overpopulating America and making it have a lower economy." Argumentum Ad Nauseum. Simply repeating that Wal-Mart is the only place to work does not make it true. This is just a gross exaggerration and cannot be substantiated. It must not be forgotten that the main contribution that Wal-mart makes to America, is in selling goods. The more stores Wal-mart opens, the more readily available goods will be to the public. My opponent then goes to make points about the pay of Wal-mart employees and their terrible benefits. This entire debate has been very confusing for me. The topic is on why Wal-mart is either good or bad for America, and I believe I was the only one focusing on this point. My opponent has valiantly proven that Wal-mart employees are being mistreated, but Wal-mart employees make up but a microscopic subset of the American population. My opponent would have us believe that WAl-mart is the only company in all of America that hires people, which is a gross exaggerration. Since it is an indisputable fact that Wal-mart is NOT the only place a person can go to seek employment, this shows that Wal-mart employees work there OUT OF THEIR OWN FREE WILL. So regardless of how ill-treated those employees are, they are doing so because the employees believe there is a fair exchange in working for Wal-mart. LET US NOT LOSE TRACK of what this edbate is about. Wal-mart may not treat their employees up to the standards that my opponent would want, but this in no way means that Wal-mart is bad for America. It is a corporation that provides the American people with a place to shop. Whereas the percentage of Americans working in Wal-mart is very small, the percentage of Americans that find some benefit from shopping at Wal-Mart is extremely large. In conclusion, Wal-Mart does Americans much more benefit than harm. The fact that my opponent wishes to focus on a small subset of people, Wal-mart employees that can leave Wal-mart at any time to work anywhere else, is meaningless.