Source Code without Tabs is Superior to Source Code with Tabs

He took this debate into an unexpected direction, but I'll bite. My opponent argues the following: A) Writing readable code increases the likelihood of outsourcing and loss of employment, so render the code meaningless to everyone but yourself for the sake of job security. This is a red herring argument, specifically, that two wrongs make a right. He argues that corporations are only going to reward readable code by outsourcing the programmer's job to India. My opponent didn't really substantiate this, but even if it were true, it does not follow that the proper response is to hold the code hostage through obfuscation. Of course, the cleverness of his argument is that he creates a nifty straw man by refocusing the debate towards a moral issue rather than refuting my arguments and the named resolution. Be that as it may, I address the moral argument below. B) Writing unreadable code locks the employer into an indefinite relationship with the programmer thereby placing job security in his own hands. The only reason to believe this would work is if you buy into his previous argument. It goes something like this: writing readable code places your job in jeopardy, therefore writing unreadable code secures it. Taken further, he'd have you believe that the more readable the code, the more at risk your job; the less readable the code, the more secure your job. In fact, the opposite is more likely to occur. Once an employer discovers such practices, your job is all the more at risk. The logic only follows if companies were known to reward good practices with job terminations and could in fact be rendered powerless by secret codes and random assortments of tabs. After all, if outsourcing is so cheap, then it's not very expensive to fire you and have your code repaired overseas. His whole argument begs some questions. One assumption is that corporations are only interested in cheaper employees, when in fact they are interested in only profit and efficiency. There are costs to outsourcing as there are benefits to local employees (. http://www.heritage.org...). The cheapest employee does not always provide the greatest return on investment. Another assumption is that job security can be manipulated entirely by the employee, when in fact the employee's job is held secure by free market forces. A programmer's job is secure so long as the company is secure. Now, I will address the moral issue and include one more argument for my position. Since my opponent did not directly address my previous contentions (1 through 4) I will extend them into this round and my new arguments will start with point 5: 5. It is immoral to intentionally obfuscate source code that is not entirely owned solely by the programmer. Since my opponent wants to bring morality into this, I'll address it. When under employment, the employer owns the sole copyright for any source code you develop while under that employment. If the copyright does not belong to you, then intentionally rendering source code completely unreadable as a ransom for your job is tantamount to embezzlement. If the copyright does belong solely to you, then there is no fear of losing your job to outsourcing, so the argument is moot. In any case, the morality of the issue is actually of minor importance as my next argument will show. 6. Improved readability results in improved job security. As mentioned earlier, my opponent presupposes that job security is solely a factor of your behavior. In reality, job security is directly affected by the security of the company. If a company does not stay competitive and profitable, then its chance of success decreases as does the job security of its employees. Therefore, anything you can do to help your company stay competitive and profitable is in your best interest, not only for job security, but also for advancement. Take for instance last month's strike at Boeing. (. http://www.heraldnet.com...). 27,000 machinists rejected Boeing's new contract offers not because of money but because of job security. The strikers wanted guarantees that their jobs would not be outsourced. In the meantime, the strike was costing Boeing $100 million each day, which would only increase the likelihood for outsourcing rather than reducing it. This example illustrates why it's in your best interest to contribute to the company's growth and success rather than hinder it. I have shown the flaws in my opponent's arguments and further supplemented my original position. In my first argument, I showed how no-tabs results in increased readability, and that readable code is more desirable. In my second round, I showed how writing readable code benefits both the employer and employee. Therefore, my argument is made all the more compelling. Readable code is more desirable by both corporations and programmers. Therefore, source code without tabs is superior (of greater value) to source code with tabs.