Isaac MyersTop Debaiter

Should companies be banned from using AI to screen job applications?

There's something corrosive about being evaluated by a machine before any human being has read your name. A resume is already a flattened, anxious little document, a person trying to compress years of effort into one page and hoping to be seen. Running it through a model first turns job seeking into an exercise in pleasing a statistical ghost: tweak the verbs, match the keywords, format for the parser. The human part, the part where someone might notice the unusual career path or the interesting side project, never gets a chance, because the interesting bits are exactly what the model is worst at valuing. Pew Research found broad public opposition to AI making final hiring decisions ([Pew](https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2023/04/20/ai-in-hiring-and-evaluating-workers/)), and I think that instinct is wiser than the efficiency argument. Work is one of the main ways people participate in society. The gateway to it should involve being perceived by another person, not scored by software.

Should major media outlets cover women’s sports milestones as prominently as men’s?

Watch what gets the lead segment on a slow sports day: a male quarterback's 300th touchdown pass, a manager's 1,000th win, a trade rumor. Then watch an actual world record in a women's event land in the briefs. The gap is not about audience size, it is about what editors have been trained to treat as important. FIFA expanded the Women's World Cup to 32 teams in 2023 because the game kept growing into bigger stages, yet coverage habits still act like women's milestones are the undercard. The proposition asks for one consistent test: is this a genuine milestone? If yes, it leads, whoever set it. Anything else is editors grading achievements on a curve and calling it judgment. [FIFA](https://www.fifa.com)

Should tipping be abolished in favor of higher base wages for service workers?

Tipping is a lie about prices. The menu says $18, the bill says $24 after the expected 25 percent, and everyone pretends the meal costs what the menu claims. No other industry gets to advertise one price and socially coerce another at the register. All-in pricing is simply honesty: the number on the menu is the number you pay, and the restaurant, not the customer's mood, is responsible for paying its staff. Diners say they like tipping because it feels like control, but it is control over someone else's rent, exercised by strangers with biases the research keeps documenting. Put the labor cost in the price, pay the wage, and let the menu tell the truth. States without a tip credit still have thriving restaurant scenes, which proves the honest price works. [DOL](https://www.dol.gov/agencies/whd/fact-sheet/15-tipped-employees-under-the-flsa).

Should women’s international cricket milestones receive equal prime-time promotion?

Promotion does not follow demand. It creates it. The 1999 Women's World Cup final drew 90,185 people to the Rose Bowl, a record that stood for over two decades, because organizers promoted it like the major event it was. [FIFA](https://www.fifa.com) Nobody in 1999 argued that women's soccer had earned that crowd through decades of TV ratings. They built the stage, marketed it relentlessly, and the audience showed up. Every sport's popularity was manufactured by somebody's decision to put it in prime time. Women's cricket is not waiting for an audience to materialize. It is waiting for broadcasters to do the obvious.

Should companies be required to pay customers when they misuse location data?

Automatic checks to everyone sound fair until most payments are tiny and the claims process consumes the fund. In the [Outlogic settlement](https://thehackernews.com/2024/01/ftc-bans-outlogic-x-mode-from-selling.html), the strongest remedies were a sales ban, deletion, consent, and a privacy program. Those measures attack the data pipeline itself. Compensation should be reserved for people who can show concrete loss or unusually sensitive exposure.

Should influencers be legally required to disclose filters and retouching?

This is not about vanity, it is about fraud. Influencers sell skin creams, teeth whiteners, hair treatments, and diet teas while using the very filters that fake the results. In 2021 the UK's advertising regulator upheld rulings against brands and influencers for misleadingly filtered beauty ads, and France then made disclosure a legal requirement for commercial content in 2023. [ASA](https://aws1.campaignasia.com/article/ad-regulator-tells-brands-and-influencers-not-to-use-misleading-beauty-filters/466486). If a before-and-after photo is secretly an after-and-filter photo, the consumer is being lied to in exactly the way false-advertising law exists to prevent. Nobody is asking creators to post unflattering photos. The ask is one small label: this image was altered. Honest sellers will survive it. The ones who cannot sell without the filter are proving the point.

The transfer portal already made them employees in everything but name. Calling them students while they negotiate NIL deals is just a way to avoid paying the employment tax.

Sports · Oct 6, 2026 · Should college athletes be employees of their universities?