The use of Sweatshop Labour.

Well, Smartboy103, I'll be more than happy to take you up on this debate. First of all, I have to put forth a few observations on what you've already said. "The term connotes a factory in which the workers are kept in a harsh environment with inadequate ventilation, and workers may sometimes be abused physically, mentally, or sexually, subjected to long hours, harsh or unsafe conditions, and the like. Sweatshops often fail to pay a living wage." If we accept this definition of a "sweatshop", then it seems upon first glance that the con side is impossible to beat. After all, who would defend a factory that abuses its workers and endangers their safety? This is what it falls upon me, as the "Pro", to do, and I'll give it my best shot. First of all, we have to decide what we're really talking about here. Since the topic is "the use of sweatshop labor" and I am "in favor", I guess my thesis is: I am in favor of the use of sweatshop labor. My opponent has given a definition of sweatshop labor, which I accept. He has also given this: "sweatshop is a factory, where people(children)work for a very small wage" WOW! This would lead you to believe that all people in sweatshops are children, right? "Some companies have been found of using children in their subcontracting sweatshops." Oh, so I guess not. It's only some companies. But wait, there's more! "Also it's all young workers under the age of 10 who get forced to do all these dangerous and risk taking work." Huh. So who does all the dangerous work in the majority of factories that, according to my opponent, don't hire children? Guess there isn't any dangerous work there. One more thing... what's the source for any of this stuff? I'm not saying my opponent made all of this up or anything, but I'd like to see some evidence before we continue. Finally, my first point... - Sweatshop labor is preferable to mechanized manufacturing Mass factory labor has always been and will always be dangerous and uncomfortable. Workers have fought against "unfair labor conditions" since the factory was invented, and short of fully mechanizing the process, there is no real way to make these no-collar jobs as cushy as a modern american white collar job. These people are, more or less, a human assembly line. Their conditions are, to us, deplorable, and it makes us feel guilty to think that sweaty, overworked, coughing 3rd world workers made the t-shirts we're wearing. We'd much rather imagine a perfect, clean, automated process like the one in the automobile ads- robots doing all the work and no pain or suffering involved. However, we forget that although these factories may be exploiting the workers, they are also giving them jobs, without which they would be in total poverty, forced to beg on the streets, become prostitutes, or worse. Granted, either career path would give them better "ventilation", but I doubt quality of life would improve. Mechanizing the process would be the only way to manufacture the goods at prices that the average consumer can afford, and even then, prices would have to be raised dramatically to make up for the capitol investment in machinery the company would have to make. The result is, the former workers would be put on the streets, and people in poverty elsewhere would no longer be able to afford to buy the clothes and goods the factory once produced. The end result is one huge argument for the status quo.