Proposing team: Rebuttal

Fisrt of all, I would like to come back on what has been written by the opposing team. They said bossnapping was "a strong attack to the basic rights of the person held hostage". Sure it is! We all agree on that. That is precisely what makes it so efficient compared to going on a strike or demonstrating in the street, wearing LCR red t-shirt and shouting out loud silly songs about how the boss is being evil with the workers. Bossnapping is forbidden, but what is allowed is clearly not enough to express your concern about your job and the entire life that relies on it.

Another mistake made by our opposers is that they think bossnapping is dangerous not only for the boss but also for the workers themselves. Indeed, the closure of a factory may eventually lead to the firing of the worker. And then? If the workers are desperate enough to retain their boss it may be because they feel they are about to be fired anyway! It is a call of despair, the expression that every other means has been pointless and that the workers are left wihout any other option whatsoever.


Let's develop a bit more our point of view now. Why would we bossnap? Well, obviously it is an unviolent way to force the boss of a company to take some time to think about the futur of his workers. Because creating a firm or owning a firm implies to be responsible for the lives of many others, and not only for one's own benefit. Spending some time with the workers of his company can help the boss to understand the concerns that inhabit them, what do they like? what are they confident about and what frightens them? It enables everyone to get to know the one who sits/stands on the other side of the desk.
A great thinker said "the difference between the blue collars and the white ones is that when they go to the toilets, the members of the first category whash their hands before to pee while those of the second one whash it after having peed. But the best of both categories do it before and after" which means that the best workers are those who do their job very carefully (but this is not my point. here it comes... almost there...) and the best managers are those who work so close to their workers that they eventually get dirty. And this is what it is all about, getting dirty once in their life contribute to the magnanimity of the boss and thus to a better social landscape.

A far more practical aspect is that of disturb and bothering. I'd rather nap my boss for 48 hours in his confortable office than jamming the traffic or blocking the train so that the rest of the city blame me for troubling its tranquility. And as a daily user of the transport network I am more inclined to be concerned about the situation of somebody who don't delay all my trains, if not cancel them.

Finally let's face it. A boss has got everything he wants. A nice car, a pretty woman, a nice woman (the difference between both is left to your imagination), a huge house, a well supplied bank account, adorable children (or not), a second home and possibly a third and a fourth... A boss has probably experienced a lot of astonishing activities such as skydiving, car race, dragster race, adultery, scuba diving, wild safari, diving with sharks, climbing Mont Everest and so on. Napping is the very last sensation left to the bosses to feel alive by facing death, even though they are not really facing death but only facing a dozen of angry workers willing to go back home with their wives and their kids with a decent salary to afford Mrs' earring and the kids' video games. Maybe some bosses have already tried to launch voluntarily a social conflict so as to be sequestered at work (perhaps also to avoid his wife's discovery of the other wife) and experience that specific sensation, one of the last left to feel for somebody who has already felt almost everything.

For the next speeches I can only hope that you will keep in mind our main arguments and especially when it will come to voting. So "debater-nap" yourself on the right side and VOTE FOR US!