Prospective Job Applicants Should Not Be Asked To Reveal Prior Criminal Convictions

http://scholar.harvard.edu... http://www.economist.com... http://www.sfgate.com... http://www.nytimes.com... http://www.nytimes.com... http://www.forbes.com... Okay, I would first like to apologize. I was unaware that you were able to post direct links to your sources, and I agree with my opponent that without these links my points did seem invalid. However, I have posted links to most of my sites, therefor all of my points are now backed up. Secondly, I will give a roadmap for my third and final speech. I will first refute the Opposition's points, then strengthen my own team's points, and in the end I will weigh this debate. REFUTING The Opposition has not layer any new points on the table, and seeing as I refuted his original three in my previous speech, all of the Opp/Con's points remain refuted, and not standing. STRENGTHENING 1) Everybody deserves a second chance. Judge, nobody is perfect, and we cannot expect anybody to live a successful life if we prohibit them from making mistakes. We cannot move forward until we move past what has happened before, but by making people's criminal records follow them everywhere, we are not allowing forgiveness or the chance to learn from your mistakes. 2) Not getting a job can lead to reoffense. This debate has been going back and forth about how it could or could not lead back to reoffense, but what my opponent is failing to understand is that, rather correlation OR causation, it more commonly does vs doesn't cause reoffense, and should we not base this debate off of what is most likely to occur? Yes, showing that this point remains valid. 3) Disregarding applications from criminals is classified as discrimination. This is according to the New York Times, (and yes I have sourced it). Discrimination is anything that unfairly biases a select group of individuals. This proves that it IS discrimination because we are unfairly disregarding applicants with criminal history, leaving this point valid. 4) This will help with unemployment. Judge, a statistic from Minneapolis University showed that once the 'ban the box' act was passed, the number of criminals finding jobs increased from 6-60%, and unemployment rates steadily decreased. Not only did this help their economy, but the ex-convicts as well. This is causation rather than correlation, because nothing had changed except for this new law, and therefore it must have been the cause of such a significant change. 5) It will bring down the prisoner rate. This relates to my second point, because if there is less reoffense there will be less prisoners, and therefore a better economy. WEIGHING Judge, I would like to put this is a simple format; what will happen in the rite of we go with the Proposition(pro) vs the Opposition(Con). Pro: There will be a more fair and just society, where people can live natural, human lives, with mistakes and learning. There will be less discrimination and unemployment, less prisoners, so therefore a lower tax rate., and a better economy. A better economy lets America remain the economic innovative powerhouse it is looked upon as, and will impact everybody positively. Con: If you go with the Con, however, there will be an unfair and inhuman society, where people are prohibited from making mistakes. It will be ridden with discrimination, there will be higher unemployment, and more taxes. The economy will be harmed, and the United States will have less power and strength than before. Our country will no longer be known for its accepting nature, but rather for its inhuman standards. As you can see, only one of these visions is possible. Judge, as you can see I have now refuted all three of the opposition's points, and all of mine remain standing, showing that the proposition should win this debate. Also, I would like to point out that even if all the Opposition's points were still standing, and my refutes were invalid, the Pro side would STILL win this debate, because having an accepting nature and powerful economy will outweigh anything the Opposition says, because it impacts everybody. Thank you all for your time, and I strongly urge a vote towards the Pro side of this debate.