To be labeled an american company should they be allowed to outsource almost all their jobs.

Okay, Con made a reasonable argument last round. However, in its specifics presents both an unrealistic, impractical, and unpopular view, specifically where my opponents subjects that 70% of the workforce must be American. Let me provide three examples of companies many people associate or would like say are quintessentially American companies: GE (General Electric), Oracle (tech company), and Caterpillar (farming equipment). What are the statistics; surely, these companies use exclusively American workers, right? Nowhere close. Currently, based on figures from the commerce department even the percentage of foreign and domestic workers is an even split. Microsoft another example, no one would likely mistake it or its founder Bill Gates as anything but American but according to the Wall Street Journal even Microsoft’s percentage barely reaches the 60% threshold.[1] Here is a graph of the general trend over the decade or so: Pro would like to reiterate a point from last round (one I thought I exhausted) the idea of an American company is a fiction—granted exceptions exists but the debate is about the general, conventional forms of economic organization in the United States. Caterpillar, GE, Oracle, Microsoft are all incorporated under Delaware law, not through federal incorporation. I would like to ask my opponent to provide examples of American companies and state two or three concrete characteristics of that distinguish American companies from foreign companies. From Pro’s perspective Con appears to engage in a normative debate (should or ought), but does not provide even the most basic descriptions, definitions, or examples. You could imagine a hypothetical debate where I said Major League Baseball should only draft American athletes. Obvious questions would arise, including what I mean by “American?” For example, do I mean born on American soil? What about individuals with dual citizenship who have never spend any significant portion of their lives inside the US would that count? What about individuals with temporary Visa or illegal immigrants that have lived their entire lives in the United States but the government does not recognize them as US citizens? Anyone success would require delineating these possibilities, if not in a specific way, at least clear enough to provide any meaning. Therefore, given that my opponent did not elaborate or expand on the general points made in round one. Pro asks that Con provide at least a general definition of “American” company because it is unclear to me. [Question to Con]: So is BP (British Petroleum) an American company or a foreign company? BP is incorporated in Delaware, they hire American workers, so should they receive subsidies? Does Con consider them to an American or foreign corporation? How did Con make that determination? Originally and I continue to believe Con has a strong argument to make that I hope to will develop in Round 3, however both Round 1 and Round 2 seem to be Con opinion that does not clearly explain the problem nor consider potential problems that result from adopting his position. If Con plan to abandon the normative position, then please provide some empirical support otherwise what are debating is nothing more than a vague, generic statement derived solely from personal feeling. I sympathize and agree with Con from on an emotional level, even fairness but that is irrelevant since this is a debate not whose opinion do you agree with more. If that were the case, we could consult one of the innumerable polls on DDO to determine who wins. However, perhaps my opponent used Round 1 and 2 as a decoy and Pro is simply cannot see the surprise attack waiting in the next round. Anyway, good luck to my opponent in Round 3. [1] David Wessel. “Big U.S. Firms Hiring Abroad.” The Wall Street Journal, April 19, 2011. http://www.wsj.com...