Ban Tipping!

Now in the final round, it is my job to refute arguments, emphasize my arguments, weigh the debate, and explain to you, voters, why I have won this debate. First off is refuting. Refutations to Refutations: 1. The paradox has surprisingly become one of the major parts of this debate. But I will explain why I win on this point. First off, I did not "attempt" to manipulate my opponent's argument; I did manipulate it, and it worked, however my opponent does not explain properly why my attempt went sour. Secondly, he admits to concede that many people tip the same regardless of service, however did not concede that not all nor the majority do, however many is synonymous with majority, therefore meaning that my opponent conceded to that point. Thirdly, he said that people tip with a black or white tip approach, and I agree, they tip more if the waitress or waiter is white and less if the waitress or waiter is black. Therefore, I have won this argument. 2. I do not claim that when a server makes a mistake, all other servers have to account for them. This is a misconstrued statement made by my opponent to falsely poke holes in my case, clearly showing that he is so desperate as to simply make up something I said, and should be disregarded by you, voters. Also, I did not state that the individual mistakes reflect the system and that this shows how it is immoral; I simply stated that tipping is immoral and should be banned and have explained how in many cases. 3. Banning the Federal Tip Credit is not the solution; banning tipping is. 4. In response to my racism argument, my opponent says that I demonstrate my desperateness in correlating tipping to racism. However, I disagree, since I am not desperate to prove that tipping is an outlet for racism; it has been proved, and my opponent tries to personally attack me instead of providing a proper refutation to this at first. Also, my opponent has misconstrued my argument thinking that I say that tipping is racist, however my argument is "Tipping should be banned because it perpetuates racism, sexism, and other unjustifiable opinions. " So let's take a look at this argument. First off, my opponent decides only to attack 1/4 of this argument, providing a refutation that simply should not pass. Secondly, I have proved through evidence that tipping is indeed racist, with specific examples of people leaving tips with notes with sexist biases. Since my opponents think that this evidence is not strong enough, however he completely ignores the evidence supporting the sexism and other biases in this argument, the "Big Breasts = Larger Waitress Tips" article. Also, he brings up a quote with no source or name of the person who said it, so my opponent is desperate enough to make up a quite and try to sound ingenious when all he is is a person who uses made-up evidence and criticizes me based on a texas-sharpshooter fallacy. Now for the final part of this refutation. In his refutations B, he says that racists are protected under the first amendment. I don't disagree with this, but he isn't seeing the big picture. Tipping is one of the major outlets for racism, so by banning tipping, we will be taking a key step to eliminate racism that has been frowned upon for years by the United States. Therefore, I believe that I have won on this portion of the debate. 5. Let's look my opponent's #5 refutation. My opponent provides us with a false dichotomy, saying that "the only possible way to ensure that additional funds are not transacted from customer to waiter would to literally set up an 'anti-tipping enforcement system'", however this is not the only choice that we have, creating this a false dichotomy. There are many more choices that we can take, such as using our police force as an "anti-tipping enforcement system", which would not be a practical option. Rather, I believe that we should not have to set up an 'anti-tipping enforcement system', however there should be a way to find waitresses who take tips, since they are illegally taking money, and fine them. The crime, however, does not suit the punishment of jail time. But, my job as Pro is not to provide a way that we can punish tippers and waitresses who accept tips, it's simply to prove that banning tipping is what we should do. Therefore, my opponent has thrown a red herring at me that I will not let slip by. 6. In my opponent's conclusion, he states "A tipping ban will not make scumbag restaurant owners rightfully increase well-deserving servers' wages, it will only lower the amount paid to the server to $2.34 an hour, the minimum wage. A ban of the Federal Tip Credit would do this, not tipping. " However, he is wrong, since the minimum wage of $2.13 an hour is a minimum wage with tips. There is a reason why we have the federal minimum wage. Waiters and waitresses, with a tipping ban, will be paid the minimum wage for their state or even higher in restaurants, therefore earning more money than they did through the wrongful process known as tipping. 7. In the end of my opponent's round 3, he states that "Since Pro has failed to uphold his burden of proof as to why a non-tipping system would be better than the one we have now, other than with paradoxes and misconceptions about what the Federal Tip credit is, I believe I have won this debate so far. ", however I disagree, since my burden of proof is simply why we should ban tipping. My opponent is trying to thrust a new BoP on me in the final round, which should be the reason why he loses this debate considering this is a wrongful thing to do. Also, I will explain more on why I have won this debate in contradiction to this statement later. The following will be a list of my arguments with evidence, however because of the character limit I cannot put entire arguments, only assertions and links, however the full arguments can be found in previous rounds. Argument 1: Restaurants should ban tipping because tipping actually harms the service of the workers. . http://qz.com.... . Argument 2: Tipping should be banned because some people tip more than others do. Argument 3: Tipping should be banned in restaurants because tipping is subsidizing restaurants. Argument 4: Tipping should be banned because it perpetuates racism, sexism, and other unjustifiable opinions. Weighing: So voters, let me weigh this debate for you. On my opponent's side, he fails to bring up evidence, tries to refute by using personal attacks instead of proper evidence, and completely ignores gigantic parts of my arguments in order to knit a refutation easy for him to use, and even conceded to a point. He tries to win by thrusting a BoP on me in the last round, and drops his arguments in the third round. His arguments are that all people tip the same regardless of service, and that tip-starved waiters perform worse, which have clearly been disproven by me. On my side, I have four strong arguments that prove why tipping should be banned and solid refutations disproving everything my opponent has said. Why I have Won: I have won this debate because my opponent, (1) has invalid evidence, (2) uses personal attacks instead of proper refuting, (3) drops his arguments in the third round, and (4) ignores large chunks of my fourth argument. Also, I have won this debate because (1) I have solid arguments, (2) I have solid evidence, (3) I have solid refutations, and (4) I don't thrust a BoP on my opponent in the last round. So voters, go with the right choice, and ban tipping!