Favoritism is shown in most fast food places and is a good thing to have in them.

Thanks, hopefully I've made it challenging. Pressing on. .. Demand: -verb (used with object) 1. to ask for with proper authority; claim as a right: He demanded payment of the debt. (. http://dictionary.reference.com...) My opponent states: "I do not see how working harder or increasing attitude gives this hypothetical individual a greater demand for the award. " As both my opponent and myself reside in the U. S. , I can only assume we are debating fast-food restaurants in our respective country. It is a common ideology in our capitalistic, American culture that hard work is rewarded; be it through recognition, monetary means(raises/bonuses), or promotions. Thus, when a worker goes above and beyond the call of duty, they necessarily expect to be given their due. In other words, they claim as a right (demand) is greater because the worker feels that he is due for his reward. My opponent continues: "I mean, the employees are working for money, they might as well work hard, right? " Looking at the current business culture, I believe that it is easy to see that this is not always the case. In many cases workers will only work hard enough to keep their job, especially when referring to lower income jobs. This is actually the entire reasoning behind incentive based awards like EOM. It encourages an employee to work harder than they normally would in order to achieve this recognition. "They are merely caused by the amount of tolerance employee X has, and the jealousy that eventually may brew up in them if this tolerance level is reached. The fault is in the emotions of employee X, and how much they can take, not favoritism. " I find this statement akin to saying something along the lines of "The problem isn't racism or sexual discrimination, it's the fault of the emotions of colored people and women. " See anything wrong with this logic? The problem isn't the human emotion caused by the act, the problem is that the act is the catalyst for the emotion. It's illogical and unreasonable to assume otherwise. Even if it were an issue of the emotions of the other workers, that doesn't negate the fact that favoritism caused the situations of discord and disdain. Neither of these being "good" situations for the productivity and profit of the restaurant. "The same applies with the dissolution of team unity, not caused by favoritism. " My opponent didn't qualify this statement, so I cannot aptly respond. If he is hinting that it is the emotional downfall of the others, I have covered that in the previous paragraph and ask that it be extended to this contention. "The workers would not have a loss of incentive knowing that if they tried they could be the next EOM, thus motivating them to try harder and not to do the opposite. " My opponent fails to realize a few factors. 1. EOM doesn't always have to be someone new every month. At some companies the employee out-performing all others (or possibly the favorite) can retain the EOM Award for a stretch of months or even indefinitely. 2. There is no definitive limit to the amount of favorites a manager can have. Therefore, even if EOM had to be someone different every month, the manager could potentially rotate continually through his favorites while ignoring the other employees. 3. Motivation only lasts so long in the face of adversity. There is no incentive for a person to continue the Sisyphean task of working harder than others and not getting rewarded. My opponent's final argument boils down to the idea that a manager should punish an employee based solely on his favoritism for others in order to increase that employee's incentive, and thus his performance. I will remind the audience that this entire debate rests on what is GOOD for the RESTAURANT. From my opponent's opening argument: "To earn this, they must work harder, enhancing the quality of the food sold at this particular place and the customer service, stock, etc. This, in turn, gives the restaurant a good reputation, adding more customers, and therefore increasing the restaurant's profit which is in fact a good thing (for them). " With this in mind, it is easy to see that my opponent's contention is not in the best interest of the restaurant; quite the opposite is true. Given his case of a new employee joining an established workforce, it would actually be MORE beneficial for the manager to award EOM to the over-productive newcomer. Doing this would supply incentive to all of the under-productive, older employees to meet this new level of productivity. The manager would then have a multitude of employees striving to be more productive instead of just one. Therefore, the restaurant would actually receive a greater benefit by avoiding favoritism. Given these arguments, it's clear that FAVORITISM is NOT a GOOD thing to have in a fast-food restaurant.