A Debate With Logical-Master

RE "Lack of EVIDENCE is evidence of absence" First, please note that CON's only problem with my argument concerning motivation is that I have not provided the evidence needed in order to show that this claim is supported. In other words, by CON's logic, if I show evidence, my claim will be fully accepted in this round. As for evidence, this should be sufficient; see below (1). RE: "That author from Nytimes ain't credible 'cause I've poisoned his well." Yes, my opponent resorts to the "poisoning the well" fallacy in attempt to dismiss my highly credible source concerning tipping. If anything though, this argument falls flat on it's face as my opponent has helped me in proving that my source is indeed highly credible through citing someone who he admits as being an authority who is well informed on tipping. But to directly attack his objection, let us look at an example. A fireman tells you to stop drop and roll when you're on fire (essentially where there's no large water source nearby). Now because the fireman is in the business of stopping unpleasant fires, my opponent would have you believe that his input on this matter is to be ignored without any hesitation. So basically, my opponent is advocating that you distrust any source/individual(s) who dedicates his/her/their time to the subject at hand when it concerns a debate. Which is completely absurd, because by that line of reason, one can dismiss just about ANY source. Got a scientist in favor of the existence of global warming who has written many peer reviewed articles on global warming in the past? Sorry, can't use this scientist because his/her prior studies on the subject make him/her unreliable, according to CON anyway. RE: "There's something fishy about that 26 billion dollar claim" First, let me give the direct source for the 26 billion dollar claim (2) (listed at the bottom) CON attempts to discredit my claim on 26 billion dollars going into tipping every year through pointing out that $575 would be spent on "dine-in' food" for everyone on average every year, and that it would boil down to 45$ being spent on dine-in food per month, however, it is quite clear that CON is making a nonsensical argument. This is simply because attempting to weigh tipping down to every single citizen hardly represents the actual truth which is that restaurant visits by costumers hinge more along the lines of social class of individuals. If we take into consideration that upper class individuals (especially businessmen/businesswomen who use restaurants as a means of business, whether it be through attempts at promotion, settling matters with clients, or making propositions with other companies) fill up a majority of that 26 billion, it makes plenty of sense, given that the other social classes would merely be supporting a fraction of the overall total. In any case, CON is free to do more than offer baseless conjecture in responding to my citation as I have offered him the very source which confirms my claim. RE: "Who are we to take money from these people" The answer to this question is quite simple. We are the customers of course. We don't go to the restaurants to serve the servers. We go to these restaurants to be served. So the question makes far more sense in reverse; who are THEY to take money from us? And given how I've shown that often times, it's not really their actual work which is earned the tip, but rather irrelevant factors, this is all the more reason to show that we don't "owe" them anything. Re: "Many times, the servers are college students or people down in their luck" Hmm, I'm afraid that CON has once again provided me with evidence. If you'll recall above, he demanded that I prove that people tip often due to guilt trips, yet just what is he advocating here in attempt to support his own case? That we should tip out of guilt for the situations the servers are in. Thus, he has negated his OWN argument. Furthermore, as pointed out in the opening round, this is no more than the appeal to pity fallacy, thus, this is not a logical reason to make tipping mandatory. Next, put this argument and its conclusion together, and you can easily conclude that his argument is non sequitur as it in no way negates the fact that these servers know the gamble they are taking ---REBUTAL TO CON's OFFENSE--- 1) In no way does this discourage racism. If anything, it ENCOURAGES it (or at very least, leaves it out in the open). Basically, what the servers are saying is that "we won't properly serve African American's until we get the kind of tip we want." So what CON is suggesting is that we give in to the demands of these servers (since apparently, he'd like you to believe that they are RIGHT to have such a racist demand in the first place). Rather than leave racism wide out in the open as CON would like to do, I submit that it be discouraged through these racist servers getting fired. If they are punished rather than rewarded (through mandatory tipping) for their reprehensible behavior, I think it is safe to say that CON's goal (in suppressing racism) is astronomically more likely to occur. Now before I go on, I'd like to point out that both African Americans and Hispanics often times aren't as financially secure as Caucasians are in our country. So is it really wrong for people who aren't financially secure to have to decline dishing out more money than they wish to spare? Of course not. 2) As mentioned before, this hurts CON's own objection to my argument. I preemptively provided a response to this argument and am waiting on CON to provide an answer. 3) If stress and confusion is a problem, then I have a better idea. Either tipping is outlawed, therefore making restaurants having to go back to the age old standard of providing their servers with minimum wage or restaurants put a big sign on either their menus or walls that dictate "all there is to be known about tipping." This would take care of the confusion or the stress that comes from not knowing how to tip quite easily. Far better than people having to pull money out of their own pockets to pay for something they may just feel is not worth paying for. 4) The term "cheated" would assume that customers "owe" the waiters a tip in the first place. If anything, it is the "employers" who owe the servers their tip (which I've already explained a means as to how they would no longer be "cheated"). 5) False. Tipping has the POTENTIAL to encourage good. Likewise, it also has the potential to encourage bad. As my opponent himself has mentioned, it can easily encourage racism. And as for the people who don't wish to tip (which, often times, is because they don't FEEL the server deserves a tip), they certainly won't be feeling any good coming out of their. If anything, they are gonna being feeling anger. And not typical anger, I mean Bruce Banner anger! Furthermore, CON has yet again unintentionally exposed a problem in his own argument. Giving someone something of their own enhances the human spirit WHEN IT IS OF THEIR OWN CHOICE. However, whey they are FORCED TO GIVE SOMETHING UP (as in, not out of their own choice), well then that "enhancement of the human spirit" simply ceases to exist. After all, you don't feel anything special about paying for a hamburger at McDonalds, do you? You don't feel anything special about having to pay outrageous gas prices to fill up your gas tank, do you? (1) http://www.nytimes.com... (2) http://www.sciencedirect.com... (for those interested enough, I regretfully inform you that you'll have to pay a fee to read the article in its entirety).