Help clarify this Lincoln Douglas debate topic!!?

Question

The topic is RESOLVED: the actions of corporations should be held to the same moral standards as the actions of individuals. Please clarify this so I can get these speeches written!!!

Answer 1

Think of it this way: If you dumped 100s of thousands of tons of PCBs (these are toxic chemicals) into the Hudson river water supply, then you lied about it for years, did studies of how people died from what you did, then lied about the studies and the effects, then when the government came to search your house and find out what you did, you said talk to my lawyer, leave me alone, maybe I will pay 1/4 of the clean up cost and donate some money for education. Then when they finally got into your house, not with guns, but with lawyer, they found you destroyed all the evidence, what do you think would happen? The scenario described above is very similar to what a number of very large companies associated with technology have done, and there are no criminal charges, no one is going to jail, no punishment is being meted out save some fine. No individual is held accountable. A person who did the same thing would be what?

Well, if an individual poisoned the water supply, I am pretty sure that he would be arrested, probably treated as a terrorist, quickly shipped to Guantanamo bay, water tortured to see if he had any accomplices, then left without civil rights in Cuba, until the government decided he was no longer a threat. To say the least, an individual would have it far worse than any company (called a person in the law).

Why is there this difference? Well, a few reasons. Government, and the American mindset protect business. As a general rule, no one wants to destroy an economy, or leave people without jobs. Second, its hard to say who is accountable. In a company, who made the decision to dump the chemicals? Well, the president will ay the vice president, the vice president will say some local manager, the local manager will say he didn't know, that he just hired someone else to get rid of it, he didn't know where it went. In politics and government, it's called plausible tenability, which really means that everyone knew what was going on but is it reasonable to say no one knew?

Also, it's easier for people to do things as part of a group. People in a groups will do things that they never would do on their owns. See, the Nazis, your general terrorist folk, armies, companies, etc. if you have more questions... post again.

hope this helped.



If an individual dumped

Answer 2

in as much as corporations are comprised solely of individuals and given that each individual within that structure is indeed held to a specific moral standard it is only right and fitting that not only should the corps be held to such a standard but theirs should be higher because of the number of people that they represent and the amount of advertising that they spend promoting their worth to society. In other words stop paying their stinking CEO's like they are little tin gods and hang a few of the greedy bastards on public access TV and then see who grabs a seat either on the morals train or on the next Lear our of the country.

Answer 3

OK first of all - write down all of your reasons for and against the moral standard should be equal.
Secondly, rate them in order or priority. The top three will be your critical points.
Third, research specific examples of your critical points from credible sources.
Remember to include any rebuttles you believe your competition will come up with.

In your introduction include the topic and 3 critical points. In your conclusion re iterate what your points weere and why they are critical.