Debatepedia partners with The People Speak Global Debates and the The National Debate Series: Boston (Nov. 10)
Debate Digest Nov 19th: Medical marijuana. Next Debate Digest article: Trying 9/11 terror suspects in NYC courts
Resolved: United States corporations should honor all prior commitments to employee pensions.
From Debatepedia
This is the March 2007 American [National Forensice League] [Public Forum] Debate topic.
This topic was obviously inspired by the number of corporations that have suspended their employee protection plans. A tough topic for the pro side on account of the inclusion of the world "all" in the topic. There are several important examples of cases in which the government taking over of pension plans has allowed companies to remain solvent on continue to function. Further, forcing companies to honor all prior commitment will often mean providing new employees with far fewer benefits than older employees enjoyed, which sets up a multi-tiered system which denies benefits to current employees in order to preserve someteims overly generous benefits offered to older employees.
Pro
Arguing that a "promise is a promise" is probably the best that pro can do. The pro will need to prepare a defense for instances the con can point to when honoring all prior commitments is simply impossible for a company. The pro's best strategy is probably to argue that one can't force a company to do the impossible. A company that goes bankrupt, for instance, may simply be unable to honor its prior commitments, especially when those commitments were based on optimistic assumptions about future earnings.
What the pro can probably do is present an case that advocates for companies setting aside each year sufficient funds to guarantee that they can meet their pension commitments, a fund that the company would not be permitted to touch and that, perhaps, would be insured by the government in much the same way that the government insures bank deposits.
Con
The con's best strategy is probably to argue that the government should, in some cases, assume the burden of employee pensions especially in those cases where failure to do so would lead to mass unemployment.
