Prospective Job Applicants Should Not Be Asked To Reveal Prior Criminal Convictions

I'm pleased to see that Pro posted some of his sources. Unfortunately, they are only some of his total sources. For instance, in Round 1 Pro presented data supposedly from Los Angeles Times as his support for the argument that "not getting a job can lead to reoffense." Pro has yet to provide that source. In another instance, Pro quotes the Economist for evidence of the amount of juvenile prisoners in California. However, Pro later drops my argument regarding juvenile records being wiped clean once they become an adult. So while he does provide some sources in this final round, Pro has still left other claims completely invalidated and additionally shares sources for arguments that have since been dropped by himself.I. Safety of the work environmentPro offered no rebuttals due to his misbelief that his previous rebuttals were still standing. In Pro's previous response to this argument, he presented the faulty claim that "people who have committed crimes that can put your life in imminent danger are in jail." I showed the fault with that claim by sharing this article: http://www.dailymail.co.uk...The article showed five different people who were released from Prison and caused imminent danger. Pro needed to back up his original claim in light of this response from me and failed to do so. Thus, Pro dropped this argument. Pro additionally claimed in the round before his last one that, "If you are arrested for murder or assault, you will stay in prison for a long time - anywhere from 50 years to life!" In the very same article I just shared above it shows people charged with murder who were released way before 50 years was served. This, again, proves Pro's claims as wrong. Pro needed to provide a rebuttal to this but never did in his last round. Thus, Pro dropped this argument as well.Lastly, the only rebuttal Pro did give to this line of argumentation were stats from Forbes and The Guardian. Unfortunately for Pro, he still never shared the Guardian source, thus that argument fails to uphold its validity. Pro even said, " I agree with my opponent that without these links my points did seem invalid." Since he failed to link the guardian article, in his own words it is invalid. As for the Forbes article, his own source states that: Unlike similar laws in other jurisdictions, however, New Jersey employers may make criminal background inquiries prior to making a formal offer. [1] This shows that his own source STILL allows for the inquiry of a criminal past before formally hiring the potential employee. His own source fails to uphold the standards he is trying to argue for. His source literally defeats the point he is trying to utilize it for. II. Reputation of the BusinessPro failed to provide any rebuttal to this line of argumentation in his final round. Pro's claim regarding both Argument I & II that, "The Opposition has not layer any new points on the table" is patently and empirically false. In the last round I not only expanded my argument by adding further clarification, but I additionally provided evidence for the possibility of the scenario of child molesters committing the same crime again which can be viewed, once more, here: http://www.norwalkreflector.com...Not once did Pro refute this latest evidence I provided in the previous round. Due to Pro's lack of a rebuttal to these new points I raised, it's evident that Pro dropped this argument. So far, Pro has dropped two key arguments.III. "everybody deserves a second chance"For the past two rounds he hasn't provided any form of rebuttal to my point regarding criminals having the ability to expunge or seal their criminal records. This is Pro's 3rd dropped argument. His only rebuttal to my argument regarding potential risk is that "we can't move forward until we move past what has happened before." This does nothing to negate the reality that it only takes one time for someone to have their identity stolen by a criminal waiter, or their business to be ruined by a previously incarcerated arsonist. Pro needed to negate that risk factor, and instead presented an appeal to emotion [2] which is his 2nd logical fallacy in this debate.IV. "not getting a job can lead to reoffense"No, we shouldn't base this debate off of what is most likely to occur. Pro is arguing against the status quo, and therefore must provide grounds for a change in the system which leaves the sole BOP on Pro.Pro failed at presenting those grounds by failing to utilize any form of evidence to support his claims. None of the sources he shared in his last round touch on this claim. In Round 1 he claimed his info came from L.A. Times, yet none of his sources that were shared are from the LA Times. Pro, according to his own rules, fails to uphold his burden.V. "disregarding applications from criminals is discrimination"Pro depends solely on NY Times articles to define what discrimination is regardless of the definition from Oxford. According to Pro, "Discrimination is anything that unfairly biases a select group of individuals." He then claims this proves it's discrimination because we are unfairly disregarding applicants with criminal history. Here's the kicker, Pro's own source actually agrees with me, not him. According to Pro's own source: while federal law prohibits discrimination against job seekers based solely on criminal history, employers are permitted to deny jobs to ex-offenders if a crime is deemed to be directly related to the work — for example, if a person convicted of theft is applying to be a cashier. [3]They actually support my position regarding scenarios like child molesters being hired by day cares, or people charged with identity theft working as restaurant servers. As you can see, discrimination does not include ex-offenders if a crime is deemed to be directly related to the work. Once again, Pro's own source defeats the point he was utilizing it for.VI. "This will help America"s problem of massive unemployment."Pro fails, once again, to provide any source for his claims regarding the Minneapolis University study. The source for that study was not given in Pro's last round, thus these statistics are nothing more than an unproven claim by Pro. There is no reason for either myself or the audience to accept it as valid when no supporting evidence is provided. Since Pro's own arguments are unfounded and unsupported by evidence, this claim is invalid.VII. "It'll also bring down the prisoner rate while it brings up the employment rate."Pro never provided proof for a correlation or cause between unemployment rate and prisoner rates. None of his sources cover such a claim. Once more, Pro presents unfounded claims as arguments. Furthermore, Pro never showed how this would be beneficial to the economy. In the round before his last, he claimed a study done in NYC showed such, but there was no study provided for us to use as verification for his claims in this debate. "There will be less discrimination and unemployment, less prisoners, so therefore a lower tax rate., and a better economy." - Pro. This is entirely unfounded and unproven by Pro. None of his sources validate such a claim. "I would like to point out that even if all the Opposition's points were still standing, and my refutes were invalid, the Pro side would STILL win this debate." - ProFalse. As Pro, you needed to overcome EVERY challenge I presented since the BOP is solely on you due to the change in status quo. If you failed to overcome even one of my challenges, you rightfully lose. Sources[1] http://www.forbes.com...[2] http://www.nizkor.org...[3] http://www.nytimes.com...