This debate focuses on the importance of Walmart for the families and the economy of America. Richard Vedder and John Tierney were for the debate while Amy Traub and Nelson Lichtenstien are against it. In Richard’s opening statement, he praises Walmart and clear the poverty issues Walmart solves in the opening statement. Tierney addresses that Walmart saves and redistributes money from developed to developing countries. He touches on saying that many trial lawyers and unions target Walmart. Those lawyers and unions believe Walmart to be a competition. The argument against Walmart takes the stage. Amy Traub starts off by explaining the story of a Walmart worker who gets manipulated by the store itself. She goes into more detail on how our economy …show more content…
Her whole introduction focuses on the fact that Walmart is not being fair with its workers. Richard starts off by contradicting Amy; he explains that Walmart has over a million workers. He makes a point explaining that Walmart has not only lifts the economy out of poverty and provides jobs, but also pays taxes. Next, passing it off to Nelson Lichtenstein, he proposes not for the “physical destruction of the company”, but a change in business model. Lichtenstien specifically points out that working at Walmart may be a job, but that does not determine the happiness level. Not only that, but people still have to spend money on healthcare, education, transportation, mortgages, and more. Audience members ask questions to the debaters. As they continue on debating for their topics and answering the audiences’ questions while repeating most of their opening statements. Elaborating on the second round, the party against Walmart uses logistics and statistics mostly to prove their argument. They used phrases like “unbalanced” to describe the effect of the economy because of Walmart. Amy and Nelson explain that the wages and hours go down since there are no lay offs from